Positive Steps for Public Process

A reset on selling the CAC, more info on proposed housing and affordability initiatives, and a preview of the April 24 City Council meeting

Greetings! I was attending a history conference out of town last week, so this Brief has a lot to cover, including updates on the April 10th City Council discussion of the Record Street shelter properties (the CAC) as well as the latest news and resources regarding the City’s proposed affordable and infill housing initiatives, and more.

As befits this beautiful, bright and sunny Nevada day, I’m feeling encouraged and invigorated by the welcome restoration of inclusive public processes regarding both the fate of the CAC and the formulation of those new housing policies. The positive steps we’ve seen on both issues would not have transpired without the direct actions of residents like you who cared enough to learn about these issues, and asked our civic leaders to slow down a bit and take the time to provide you (and themselves) with the information needed to make informed and responsible decisions.

Thanks, too, to those City Councilmembers who use your precious time on the dais to promote transparency, support discussion and debate, and take seriously your responsibility to represent the constituents you serve. It does not go unnoticed.

More on those two items in a bit. But first, let’s take a look at the week ahead.

---

Next week’s City Council and other public meetings

City Council meets again on Wednesday, April 24, and you can view that full meeting agenda here. As usual, I encourage you to browse through it for issues that interest you. Some development-related items include these:

• Consent Agenda Items B.1 through B.21 (only discussed individually upon request) include business license applications and changes; sponsorship applications for special events; the City’s Annual Report to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (B.18); and more.

• Finance Item D.3 is the next stage in issuing a Sewer Bond with a maximum principal amount not to exceed $70M to finance sewerage projects.

• Parks and Rec Item D.4 will discuss the status of the Pembroke Flat Field project.

• Public Works items will discuss the regional Intelligent Transportation Systems master plan (D.6); request Council input on RTC Washoe’s 2050 Regional Transportation Plan update (D.7); and approve contractors for the new Reno Fire Department Central Station (D.8).

• City Manager Item D. 9 is a presentation and discussion of EDAWN’s Annual Economic Update, but no staff report or presentation has been posted as of 4/20.

• Ordinance Items F. 1 through F. 4 involve rezoning sites along the White Lake Parkway (F.1); East Plumb Lane (F.2 and F.3); and 9590 North Virginia Street (F.4).

• A Public Hearing scheduled for 6:00 p.m. involves three appeals of the Administrator’s decision to allow construction of the LifeChurch Primary School in a residential area on the east side of Rio Wrangler Parkway.

Next week’s entire calendar of Current and Upcoming Meetings is here. In addition to City Council, they include the Arts & Culture Commission (4/22); Public Art Committee (4/22); a special meeting of the Joint Coordinating Committee for the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility (4/23), the Truckee Meadows Stormwater Permit Coordinating Committee (4/25), and more.

Now let’s catch up on last week.

---

Resignation of Reno City Manager Doug Thornley

As most of you likely heard, Reno City Manager Doug Thornley submitted his letter of resignation on April 8, planning a July departure. Articles providing context on his tenure with the City appeared in This is Reno and the Reno Gazette-Journal.

City Council will appoint an interim City Manager as they conduct a search for Thornley’s replacement. As Thornley wrote in his letter, “It’s time for a leader who can focus on economic development, downtown revitalization, and attaining regional fiscal equity in the provision of emergency services for our community.” According to KOLO 8, “The mayor says her preference will be for someone like Thornley who is familiar with the city.” Other Councilmembers may have other priorities, so we’ll see how that discussion unfolds in the weeks to come.

---

A Reset on the Record Street CAC Properties

Next up came more news regarding the unsolicited offer for the Community Assistance Center (CAC) properties on Record Street that I wrote about on April 7.

If you weren’t following the news last week, I won’t hold you in suspense: after a prolonged discussion, City Council voted to have the Record Street properties assessed and to prepare to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for them rather than enter into exclusive negotiations with Bash Capital, LLC.

That decision is a welcome one, as it will allow anyone (including Bash Capital, LLC) to formally submit proposals that could potentially include ideas for repurposing the existing structures or removing them to develop something else on the site.

I’ll have more thoughts on what I’d like to see in that RFP in just a bit. But first, I want to explain what inspired even more concern the day before the meeting. And I’m writing about this not to add fuel to what was already a fiery meeting, but to place the developments of last week in context with my oft-stated concerns about public process, particularly with respect to decisions about City-owned properties like the CAC, National Bowling Stadium, Lear Theater, and Southern Pacific Railroad Depot.

Sometime on Tuesday, April 9, two new documents popped up on the City’s website:

1. A presentation from Bash Capital, LLC titled “Attainable Workforce Housing on 4th Street Corridor”

2. A Staff presentation on  Letter of Interest to Purchase 315 and 355 Record Street

Now, supplementary materials do sometimes appear online a day or two before a Council meeting. But these particular documents contained content that was critical not only to inform the public about what was to be discussed on Wednesday, but to inform City Council what they would even be evaluating.

And there was something else that is definitely not normal. The staff recommendation in the Staff Report posted with the agenda the week prior was for City Council to choose from a number of options that could include securing an appraisal of the properties; entering into exclusive negotiations with Bash Capital, LLC; issuing an RFP for the CAC properties; or putting them up for public auction.

In contrast, the new staff presentation posted the day before the meeting recommended only that Council vote to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Bash Capital, Inc. That’s it.

I would certainly have written a different preview of the item had I known staff was recommending that sole option over issuing an RFP or holding a public auction.

The Bash Capital, LLC presentation that was posted on Tuesday raised some serious questions for me, but since Council did not decide to enter into negotiations with them, I don’t think they bear additional discussion at this time. I’d still encourage you to check it out, though, as the idea may return as a formal response to an RFP.

What does warrant mention here is the revelation contained in an April 9 This is Reno article (“Sale of Community Assistance Center in discussion for months despite no council decision on its future” ) that Bash Capital, LLC had first approached the City about the properties as far back as last summer. As reporter Kristen Hackbarth revealed, Revitalization Manager Bryan McArdle was getting “updates” in July of 2023 on Bash Capital’s plans for the site, which he was asked to “please keep to yourself….”

I hope you will read the entire article (and subscribe to This is Reno if you haven’t already) as it provides important context for the occasionally volatile April 10 meeting. Several news outlets issued reports the following day, including Kelsey Penrose of This is Reno ("Accusations of ‘back door deals’ levied in proposed Community Assistance Center purchase") and Ben Margiott of News4Reno ("After 'problematic' process and developer bid, Reno to take offers on old homeless shelter").

You can watch the proceedings yourself via the YouTube recording, where discussion of Item D.5 starts here, but there were relevant comments during the initial public comment period and the approval of the agenda. (I’m not going to say much about the current City Council races (at least not until after the primaries), but if you live in one of the wards where a seated Councilmember is up for election, I highly recommend watching as many meetings as you can to see how they choose to represent you.)

I don’t believe, as some stated, that what we’re dealing with here are “back door deals” or “secret negotiations,” but lapses in process don’t have to be that dramatic to be problematic, which I think the eventual Council vote to issue an RFP recognized.

As I wrote last October, the public has reason to be concerned about the reliability and transparency of public process when key information seems to be withheld from public view for an extended period of time. I’ll repeat some of what I wrote back then:

“When the link between City actions and prior public discussion isn’t clear, residents can find themselves frustrated. The more substantive and consequential the issue—and the more people who care about it—the larger the potential degree and scope of frustration, if it seems that City staff, at the direction of the City Manager, may have exercised a bit too much latitude, if they don’t seem to have all the facts or knowledge of best practices at hand, or if they aren’t keeping Council—and by extension, the public—updated on certain items of clear public interest. And sometimes by the time an item arrives on a Council agenda, City staff has already proceeded so far in one direction that Council is left with very little time or substance to deliberate and residents feel powerless to change the course of events.”

Public commenters at the September 27, 2023 Council meeting as well as Councilmember Brekhus asked the City to put the disposition of the CAC on a Council agenda, as did I, so “residents and Councilmembers can pose a whole series of questions to City staff, and ensure that all options for the property are considered.”

That didn’t happen, however, and the CAC didn’t appear again on the agenda until the April 10 meeting, when City staff recommended that the City enter into an exclusive agreement with a company most of us had never heard of until the week prior. And it’s equally alarming if City Councilmembers hadn’t seen the proposal until the day before the meeting, either, since that would have given them no time to even evaluate the company, much less their proposal for an extremely complicated site.

I’m pleased that there were calls at this meeting to standardize procedures for entertaining outside interest in City property. And I look forward to seeing a detailed RFP from the City that provides substantive information about this site’s physical, environmental, and legal constraints. All of that should be readily available to them, as the City had to contend with all of it before constructing both CAC buildings and the adjacent Reno-Sparks Gospel Mission less than 20 years ago.

I would be remiss if I did not add that this item is something that would undoubtedly have been discussed by the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB) had that body not been dissolved a few years ago, and I want to again draw your attention to my ongoing call for the reinstatement of that important citizen body.

---

Housing and Affordability Initiatives

Next up, as I wrote in my April 7 Brief, the City delayed their consideration of some ordinance changes grouped together as Housing and Affordability Initiatives until they could gather more public feedback. They have now taken steps to garner that feedback, holding four virtual “stakeholder meetings” over the past two weeks.

If you didn’t get a chance to attend any of those, the City of Reno just posted a recording of the April 16 meeting on YouTube. It’s about 40 minutes total (including the presentation + questions). And a quick FYI: this does not include discussion of ADUs, which will occur later through a separate dedicated process.

I outlined these initiatives in my March 24 Brief, and they’re laid out very clearly in this video, where Development Services Assistant Director Angela Fuss explains the original staff recommendations for these ordinances as well as the intensifications that the Planning Commission suggested—which in some cases, would change them substantially (for instance, allowing affordable housing projects to be built two stories higher than otherwise allowed in a given zoning district, and be exempt from the standard requirements for both setbacks and parking, as she explains here). Fuss also provides very clear examples (with images) to illustrate how these types of initiatives have played out in Reno and what they might look like if implemented.

The discussion of allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes to be built in all areas currently zoned for single-family (they’re allowed in SF-8 and SF-11, but this would add the SF-3 and SF-5 zoning districts) begins here. Fuss includes a helpful map of where they are currently allowed (with a conditional use permit) and where they are proposed to be allowed. The Planning Commission recommended that they be allowed by-right (without public review) in all single-family districts (something Fuss explains has been allowed by many other jurisdictions, and I’ll have some links to articles about that below). Fuss also answers some resident questions toward the end and encourages residents to contact their Councilmembers to express their views.

The next steps are approaching rapidly. On May 8, City Council will review all the stakeholder feedback and provide staff with input into how they want the ordinance to read. That (potentially revised) ordinance is scheduled for a first reading by City Council on May 22 and a second reading on June 10.

Whatever your opinion of these initiatives, please take the time to watch this very informative video and share it with your friends and neighbors. Promoting and expanding more public awareness is the only way to ensure that no one is taken by surprise by policies that may impact them and that opinions are grounded in facts, not assumptions.

---

Readings on increasing the housing supply

In many other communities, proposed zoning changes intended to increase housing supply are the subject of extensive media coverage. That’s not happening to a large extent here, and I think part of the reason may be semantics.

I’ve compiled some online readings that discuss zoning changes nationally and in other jurisdictions. And you’ll see that many of these articles refer to “eliminating single-family” zoning, or more accurately, “eliminating single-family-only” zoning.

Most communities that are said to have done this have rezoned neighborhoods formerly zoned exclusively for single-family homes to allow for construction of duplexes, triplexes, and in some cases, fourplexes or even larger multifamily projects. The difference is that they generally rename those zoning districts something like “residential” rather than keeping the “single-family” or “SF” designation and just expanding what’s allowed there (as Reno is proposing to do).

And yet allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in all single-family zoned neighborhoods, especially without requiring a conditional use permit for them (as the Planning Commission has recommended), would essentially accomplish the same thing. It’s kind of a backwards way to get at the same result—and is possibly why it’s not getting as much attention, to be honest. After all, “banning single-family zoning” is what gets the headlines these days, not “allowing certain types of multi-family development in all single-family neighborhoods.” See what I mean?

Some of these readings take a broad national view while others discuss actions taken by individual municipalities and states, for comparison. Some take positions, while others aim to provide just the facts. I’m not endorsing any of them in particular, but I do think they all offer valuable information and insights.

The U.S. needs more affordable housing — where to put it is a bigger battle (February 11, 2023 | National Public Radio (WAMU 88.5)

Small Multifamily Homes Were Disappearing. Now States Are Scrambling to Revive Them (August 26, 2023 | Bloomberg CityLab)

How Eliminating Single-Family-Only Zoning Will Impact Builders and Developers (December 12, 2022 | BuilderOnline.com)

How Important was the Single Family Housing Ban in Minneapolis? (May 26, 2022 | Governing.com)

An Early Look at the End of Single-Family Zoning in Spokane (August 17, 2023 | One Final Effort blog by Matthew Maltman)

As Spokane smashes building permit records, a planned South Hill sixplex offers hints at the city's dense future (April 4, 2024 | The Spokane Inlander)

Biden is Doubling Down on a Push to Roll Back Single-Family Zoning Laws (April 12, 2022 | Route-Fifty.com)

Effective Zoning Reform Isn’t as Simple as It Seems (May 24, 2022 | Bloomberg CityLab)

Portland changes zoning rules to allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes in areas previously reserved for single-family homes (August 13, 2020) OregonLive.com)

Ending Single-Family Zoning Is Not a Stand-Alone Solution (January 21, 2022 | Governing.com)

People Behind the Plans: ‘Arbitrary Lines’ Author Nolan Gray on Zoning Reform and Hitting Planning’s Reset Button (undated | Planning.org)

Dismantling the False Dichotomy Fueling the NIMBY/YIMBY Feud (September 7, 2022 | David Friedlander, Medium.com)

If you come across other readings you’d like to share, please feel free to add them to the comments on this post’s Substack page. Happy reading, and let’s continue this important conversation!

---

South Virginia Street Safety Management Plan

One last item for today: the Nevada Department of Transportation is planning a number of safety improvements to South Virginia Street between Patriot Boulevard and the Mt. Rose Highway. You can find the project website here, where you can learn more, watch an “Online Virtual Meeting,” and submit comments through April 26.

---

That’s it for this week. Thanks so much to those of you who have upgraded to an optional paid subscription to support my efforts—it truly means so much to me. Have a wonderful weekend, and enjoy the gorgeous weather!

---

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 X, 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.