Major Zoning Code Changes to be considered by City Council on March 27

Most residential parcels in Reno would be impacted by changes intended to facilitate construction of urban infill and affordable housing.

I’d say Happy Spring, but March is being especially March-like out there this weekend. Enjoy what you can of it and let’s hope for warmer temps soon!

As usual, be sure to check the City’s Current and Upcoming Meetings web page for meetings of interest in the coming week. The full City of Reno calendar is here.

Reno City Council meets at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 27, and you can view the entire agenda here. Today I’m highlighting two agenda items related to housing and Reno’s Land Development Code (Title 18):

• Item C. 2 is listed as an Ordinance Introduction regarding potential changes being proposed under the umbrella of Affordable Housing Initiatives. They involve allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in single-family zoned neighborhoods; allowing more multifamily and affordable housing to be constructed “by right”; expediting building permits; and allowing for higher density development in certain cases. More on that below.

• Under Item D. 1, Council will get a staff report on the City’s recent survey regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and talk about next steps in a potential ordinance change related to them.

---

C. 2 Affordable Housing Initiatives

The changes to the City’s development code proposed under Item C. 2 were first introduced to City Council at a workshop last November, with the stated goal of increasing and expediting the construction of affordable housing. I previewed them in my October 30, 2023 edition of the Brief.

These changes are potentially very broad in application and would pertain to both single-family and multifamily zoned neighborhoods throughout the City of Reno.

Councilmembers had a lot of questions during that November workshop, with some asking for more information as well as local examples. In some cases they asked for very specific changes to staff’s suggested language.

Staff returned in December with more information, and the Staff Report for Council’s December 6, 2023 meeting is a very helpful resource, as it summarizes why City staff is making these recommendations and how they would change the current code, with examples of the types of projects they would pertain to. The accompanying powerpoint for that presentation is found here. Staff also held three virtual stakeholder meetings in January where residents could express their ideas and concerns and have their questions answered (around 150 residents participated).

This coming week, City Council will have the option of adopting some or all of staff’s recommended changes if they can agree on desired language for an ordinance amendment. If they do go forward with approving a first reading of the ordinance, then they would only have to approve it a second time for the code to change.

I want to help residents understand what some of these potential changes are, but at the same time I want to express my hope that City Council does not treat this week’s discussion as a first reading of the ordinance, which I think would be premature, for a number of reasons:  

1. I don’t believe that the Reno residents who these changes would affect have been made sufficiently aware of them and their implications for zoning districts throughout the city.

2. A number of requested revisions to the ordinance’s language as previously suggested by City Councilmembers have not been implemented in the current draft, meaning there should be much more discussion of them (and Council does not get much opportunity for discussion during their meetings, just a few rounds of three-minute statements or questions).

3. The Planning Commission voted on February 7 to recommend that Council add additional and substantial changes that would (in the words of the Staff Report) “intensify the housing initiatives even further,” but that the public has not been able to review at all.

---

Who would be impacted by the proposed changes?

Before diving in, it’s necessary to understand that in Reno’s Land Development code, many single family and multifamily zoned neighborhoods are identified by the number of allowed units per acre. The higher the number, the greater the allowed density of housing in that area (SF3 = three dwelling units per acre; SF5 = five dwelling units per acre, etc). Multifamily neighborhoods naturally allow for more units per acre (i.e. MF14, MF21, MF30).

This is all fully explained in Section 18.02.108, where you can also find links to the sections that describe each category in more detail, including required setbacks, allowed height, maximum allowed density, etc., for each of the zoning types.

Reno Land Development Code (Title 18) Section 18.02.101

NOTE: If you’re not sure of the zoning classification of the property where you live, head to the Washoe Regional Mapping System (WRMS) website and enter your address in the search window at the top right. When you do, your parcel will be designated with a pin. Click on the parcel number beside it (you may have to zoom in) and an array of information will appear in a pop-up box. Beside “Land Zoning” you’ll see a code like MF30, SF8, etc. All of Reno’s classifications are explained here. Be aware that some residential districts in the City are part of Planned Developments (PD) or Specific Plan Districts (SPD), which are governed by their own regulations.

---

What are the proposed changes?

You can review staff’s suggested changes to several sections of Title 18 yourself by viewing the Housing Redlines, a document that includes the text of the current ordinance with the staff’s suggested additions and deletions marked in red and the Planning Commission’s new recommendations included in the footnotes.

I encourage you to read the prior staff reports and minutes for more detailed explanations of these.  The clearest and most comprehensive I’ve found are in the Staff Report for the February 7, 2024 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, and I’ll provide links to that document with page numbers below.

So let’s get into it.

---

Allowing Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes in all Single-Family Neighborhoods

One category of initiatives is intended to add greater density to residential neighborhoods by making it easier to construct “missing middle” units that are especially suited for urban infill.

Here, City staff is recommending allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in all single-family zoning districts that the code governs. They are already allowed (with approval of a conditional use permit) in SF5 and SF8 zoning districts. (There can only be one primary use per lot, so a duplex, for instance, would not be permitted on the same lot as a single-family residence.)

City staff has recommended that these duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes still require a Conditional Use Permit, which get reviewed in public by the Planning Commission.

In their February 7 meeting, a Planning Commission majority voted to recommend that these new types of housing be allowed in single-family zoning districts “by right,” without being subject to review by the Planning Commission or the public (Housing Redlines p.2).

That’s an enormous difference, and not something staff was recommending. In recommending retaining the conditional use permit requirement for such infill, staff wrote, “This is a minor change that is not anticipated to have significant impacts on the housing supply and still allows for the public review process within the two additional single-family zoning districts” (Staff report for February 7 PC meeting, p. 6).

---

Exempting projects of 20-100 units from minor conditional use permits

This next change would remove the conditional use permit requirement for multifamily dwellings of less than 100 units (Housing Redlines p.20), regardless of their affordability. Currently a minor conditional use permit (reviewed by City staff) is required for projects between 20 and 100 units. This change would eliminate the requirement for even that review and just allow those projects to proceed “by right.”

Larger multifamily projects with more than 100 units would still require approval of a conditional use permit. As staff writes, “The proposed changes to the zoning code to allow these smaller multifamily developments by-right will not have a significant impact on the supply of housing, but will help to bring infill housing to market faster” (Staff report for February 7 PC meeting, p.5).

---

Allowing higher densities for certain projects (“density bonuses”)

The idea behind this one is to encourage higher density development, whether designated as affordable or not. Currently, different zoned areas have maximum allowed densities for individual projects, often linked to the availability of existing infrastructure, roadways, utilities, public transit, shopping, etc.

These new staff recommendations would add to existing “density bonuses,” allowing both affordable and market rate projects to exceed the standard maximum allowed density for their zoned district, with larger “bonuses” corresponding to higher levels of affordability and smaller units. The draft would allow an 80% density bonus for units under 1,000 square feet in size, but would still allow a 35% density bonus for units of as large as 1,800 square feet, something that Councilmember Naomi Duerr suggested last year seemed far too large a unit to qualify for this kind of incentive.

According to staff, “Considering that the majority of projects that have utilized the density bonus in the past three years were only able to add an additional 1-3 units, the proposed changes are not anticipated to make a significant impact on increasing the housing supply, but will help to move the needle” (Staff report for the February 7 PC meeting, p. 3-5).

---

Allowing affordable housing “by right”

A number of suggested changes are meant to incentivize the construction of affordable housing in particular, defining that as housing intended for residents making less than 60% area median income (AMI).

There are two primary categories of recommended changes here:

1. Exemption from any kind of entitlement review. This means that projects meeting the affordable requirements would be allowed “by right” and could go straight to permitting.

2. Expedited review of permits and plans by Development Services staff.

By “exemption from entitlement review,” staff means that projects “providing affordable housing with an average total gross income not exceeding 60 percent of the AMI shall be exempt from all minor conditional use permit [which are staff-reviewed], conditional user permit [reviewed by the Planning Commission], site plan review, and major site plan review application requirements.

The recommendations related to affordable housing are not tied to any particular zoning districts. So with the proposed enabling of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in all single-family neighborhoods, these standards could apply to any affordable multifamily housing project constructed there as well as in areas already zoned for multifamily development.

In their February 7 meeting, a Planning Commission majority voted to suggest even further allowances for affordable housing projects in any allowed zoning district:

The Planning Commission recommendation would allow any affordable housing project to be exempt from requirements for minor and major deviations to setbacks and minimum parking requirements, and allow these projects to be built an additional two stories higher than otherwise allowed. (Housing Redlines, p. 34)

If I’m understanding this correctly, that could mean that a fourplex could be constructed in a single-family district and built two stories higher than any existing building, extending closer to the property line than currently allowed, with no parking provided, all without any public review.

---

How much of a project must be “affordable” to qualify?

All of these initiatives are being proposed under the umbrella of encouraging the construction of more affordable housing (even though some apply to market rate housing, too). But one question I’ve had since last October is this: What percentage of a building’s units would have to meet the definition of “affordable” in order to qualify for the incentives, expedited reviews, and conditional use permit exemptions specifically linked to affordable housing? I still see no clear explanation of that, certainly not explicitly stated in the ordinance draft.

Could it be ten affordable units out of 20? Could it be two? Even one? If the idea here is to incentivize the development of affordable housing, then it seems that the ordinance should include a percentage or proportion of the project that must be devoted to affordable housing in order to qualify. Otherwise, it seems the ordinance could be misused by someone who is including only a few affordable housing units in a project that is almost exclusively market rate, right?

And that would mean that a whole slew of incentives and exemptions intended to support and expedite affordable housing might be doing quite the opposite.

---

Public Review Serves a Critical Function

I’m also concerned, as usual, at the prospect of exempting projects from public review, and particularly by any proposed elimination of the requirement for conditional use permits, which are reviewed in public by the Planning Commission.

Those in favor of exempting projects from “entitlement review” argue that doing so would save builders/developers time and money and provide greater certainty.

All of those may be true (to varying extents), but at what cost?

Affordable housing projects, or “missing middle” projects, or high-density projects, are not inherently better designed than any other projects. They aren’t automatically more responsive to their immediate contexts. Why should we act as though they are?

The Planning Commission provides an invaluable forum not just for allowing the public to speak about proposed projects, but ensuring that a project is more responsive to its context, something that a builder/developer may not fully comprehend, much less design for.

If a project is allowed to be constructed “by right,” then as long as it meets code, it can proceed as originally designed, with no opportunity for modification based on potentially unknown variables or contextual factors.

Every site and every context is different, and anyone who has appeared in front of the Planning Commission about a project to express their concerns and had them negotiated and addressed in a positive manner right in front of them knows to what extent their review can result in a product that makes everyone happier. And that can be about architectural compatibility, setbacks, shadowing, traffic patterns, noise reduction, nearby developments and activities, and any number of highly contextual issues. Public review of development projects is not just about plans; it’s about people—the people who would inhabit those projects just as much as those around them.

The point of public review is not to prevent projects from being built; it’s to make them better. For everyone.

Which brings me to the Planning Commission and their decision to recommend all those additional changes to this ordinance in their meeting last month.

---

The Planning Commission and Public Process

As I stated above, City staff came to the February 7 Planning Commission meeting with a series of recommendations carefully derived from their own analysis of data and prior projects; outside consultation and municipal comparisons; City Council suggestions; and input from public stakeholder meetings. Their recommendations have remained almost entirely consistent since they were first brought to Council last November.

Then in the course of their February meeting, members of the Planning Commission introduced a number of very specific and entirely new recommendations, prompted not by any staff recommendations or input from the stakeholder sessions or public comments, not by their own practical experience in the field or examination of past projects—just by their own personal interest in seeing more extensive changes.

Commissioner Alex Velto kicked things off by introducing two potential amendments to allow even more projects “by right,” followed by Commissioner Kerry Rohrmeier who suggested “going much farther,” prompting even more recommended amendments, which ultimately five out of seven commissioners voted to support.

Now, the Planning Commission has every right to recommend possible amendments to ordinances before they’re passed along to City Council. But in this case, the nature of their recommendations was (as the commissioners themselves admitted) so much more “drastic” than what staff recommended, that they pose a serious threat to the integrity of the public process already well underway.

As Assistant Development Services Director Angela Fuss reminded the commissioners, the goal in making recommendations for these ordinance changes was “to get something that Council will support which means the community has to support it [emphasis added].”

And that’s the key here. This is an ordinance that, as drafted, already proposes sweeping changes that could affect every residential zoning district in the city—and nothing the Planning Commission just voted to add has been seen by anyone who didn’t happen to be at their meeting (which was very few).

When you read through their meeting minutes and the summary in the March 27 staff report, you can see that the Planning Commissioners who voted to recommend these “more robust” and “drastic” suggestions justified doing so because (in their opinion) City Council and the public would have plenty of opportunity to fully discuss them and weigh whether or not to adopt them.

Commissioner Harris Armstrong said he “would rather provide City Council with something as robust as they can within reason and they can make those changes with the public process and input during their two readings.” Commissioner J.D. Drakulich said he was willing to support the proposed additions “as long as it is going to Council and has public discussion.”

But when exactly did they think that public discussion was going to happen? At the first reading of the ordinance?

In order to be sure they have ascertained how the community feels about these recommendations, three things would have to happen before a Council vote:

1. The public would have to know what the Planning Commission recommended and what the possible ramifications of those changes would be.  

2. The public would have to be able to inform their representatives on City Council what they think of those recommendations.

3. City Council would have to be able to themselves understand the implications of those suggestions and synthesize their own impressions of them with public responses to them.

Obviously none of that can happen in time for this Wednesday’s meeting.  I haven’t seen any other media platform even report on what the Planning Commission recommended back in February, much less what City Council has on their agenda this week. (Even as recently as ten years ago, upcoming zoning change decisions facing the Planning Commission and City Council were prominently described in advance and reported after the fact in the daily Reno Gazette-Journal, but that degradation in local government coverage is a sad topic for another time.)

Whether or not you personally support these proposed changes to the City code, I hope we can all agree that it’s important that residents of the entire City be made aware of them before City Council votes to enact anything.

---

So what happens now?

A few things need to happen on March 27 with respect to these housing initiatives—primarily, a number of questions need to be asked and answered (or asked and taken away by staff to research and return with answers at a future date).

Here are some of mine:

1. As I asked above, what percentage of a project would have to be dedicated to “affordable” units in order to qualify for these incentives, expedited reviews, exemptions, and density bonuses? As written, any affordable units would have to be “comparable and representative” of the rest of the project’s units, but there’s no indication of how many. So that seems especially critical to define.

2. One of the reasons given for initiating these changes was the adoption by the state legislature in 2023 of AB 213, which requires jurisdictions to make changes to land use planning processes and create a number of expedited processes for affordable housing projects. But it was never made clear how many of those options the City of Reno has already adopted. I’d like to know that answer, so we’re not operating under a false sense of urgency to adopt a certain number of completely new initiatives by the legislature’s imposed deadline of July 1, 2024.

3. Why were some Councilmembers’ suggested edits not incorporated into the current ordinance draft?

4. To what extent has City staff been able to analyze the potential implications of the Planning Commission’s additional recommendations?

5. How can City Council be assured that they have community support for these actions? If these potential changes could conceivably impact every residential district, shouldn’t the City send out postcards informing all residents of them?

You may have more questions, and I hope you do. As usual, the City provides many avenues for public comment, but the most effective way to ensure you’re being heard is to attend in person (or via Zoom, where you can also provide live comments). Here are all the options for public comment (besides attending in person at City Hall):

• 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/Council03-27, which will provide the Webinar ID and call-in phone number.

Further instructions and information can be found at the top of the agenda.

I will admit that I’ve been disappointed at the lack of discussion of public comments that are received via writing in advance, with the City Clerk only announcing a tally of how many were “in support,” “opposed,” or “concerned.” It’s still very important to lodge your input that way (so others can view it too) but you might want to consider additional action for issues you feel strongly about.

And, of course, you should always feel free to contact your Councilmembers directly via their contact information on the City website.

---

D. 1: Accessory Dwelling Units

The second housing-related issue being discussed by Council on March 27 is Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs, which I also wrote about last October.

Under this item, the City Council will be presented with the results of a survey that was held for the first two months of the year to solicit feedback on the topic (just over 2,000 responses were collected). And they will also discuss what the next steps would be to create an ADU ordinance.

The online agenda provides links to the Staff Report, survey results, map of responses, summary of responses, and open-ended responses. Hopefully we can expect a robust discussion of all of this data, and you should feel free to use those links above to comment on this item, too.

Lastly, be sure to read the rest of the Council agenda for items of interest to you.

---

And in case you missed it, don’t forget to read the last edition of The Barber Brief, Bring Back Reno’s Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board. It’s important.

---

Thank you so much to all my subscribers and especially to those who have made the choice to upgrade to a paid monthly, annual, or founding subscription. Your financial support makes it possible for me to dedicate my time and energy to keeping you informed of the activities and actions that shape our city. Your paid support also allows me to keep each weekly edition of The Barber Brief free to all readers so that no one is left out of these important conversations.

---

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 contribute to my efforts, 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.