Should the City abandon Stevenson Street?
Necessary context to properly evaluate the request to Council on September 11.
[10/21/2024 Update: The Stevenson Street abandonment request—with some alterations—will now be heard by City Council on Wednesday, October 23.]
[9/11/2024 Update: The September 11, 2024 Reno City Council meeting has been CANCELLED due to the Davis Fire. I’ll keep readers posted with any updates regarding items that were scheduled to be heard at this meeting, including the Stevenson Street abandonment request and the final presentation of the Truckee River Vision Plan. Please stay safe out there!]
I hope you’ve all had a safe weekend, and let’s all keep our thoughts with those affected by the ongoing Davis Fire and who continue to fight it on our behalf.
The schedule, agendas, and supporting materials for City of Reno meetings for the week of September 9-13 can all be found here. Reno City Council next meets on Wednesday, September 11. You can find that full agenda here and I’ll just be highlighting just one item today: a request to abandon Stevenson Street (Item C.1).
Other items of interest to you may include item D.2, which is the final presentation of the Truckee River Vision Plan (postponed from August 28). There’s also a second reading of the ordinance to amend zoning and the PUD handbook for The Canyons development, under F.1. So be sure to take a look.
Item C.1 - Stevenson Street Abandonment
The private owners of the properties lining both sides of Stevenson Street between West First and West Second Streets are back with a request for the City to abandon the street and allow them to convert it to a mix of public and private parking. You might already have seen Mike Van Houten’s post about it in Downtown Makeover here.
If this item sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve heard versions of this request a few times before. As Mike writes, we saw a proposal to convert the block into a park-like space in 2020, when City Council asked the applicants to work with the City on a Development Agreement to govern the proposed deal. That never happened, and then last summer, news broke of another proposal—this time, prioritizing private parking and a handful of public spaces—still with no Development Agreement to specify what would be constructed on either side and how the public would benefit.
And now they’re back with another proposal that would turn the street into a public/private parking lot with a northbound access lane running through the center. There are a lot of materials included alongside the Staff Report, which contains an overview and recommended motion to approve the request with a list of conditions.
What’s the proposal and how is it evaluated?
You can see specifically what’s being proposed for this approximately 32,000 square foot area in Exhibit E: Signage and Parking Management Plan.
This plan would create a parking lot with 68 perpendicular parking spaces along the street, interspersed with trees (required by code when creating a parking lot). A total of 22 of those spaces would be permanently reserved for paid public parking, while 23 spaces would be reserved for private use by the adjacent landowners and 23 would be shared public/private until the west side of the street is developed, at which time they would be dedicated to private use by that development. So ultimately, that’s a total of 22 spots for the public and 46 for exclusive use by the adjacent properties.
Before I get into my analysis, you need to know that street abandonments are unusual when it comes to the disposition of land because they can be decided by Reno City Council in a single meeting with a majority vote (which in this case means four votes).
However, to grant an abandonment of the public right-of-way, the Council needs to be able to definitively make one finding: that the public will not be materially injured by the abandonment. That’s a more difficult finding than it may initially seem. It doesn’t mean physically injured, or even financially injured; legally, material injury means “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.” In other words, would the public be worse off if this request were granted?
Trying to determine the answer to that is complicated not only because it’s extremely difficult to prove a negative (that there will be no such harm), but also because a large number of people who would be impacted by this action do not live or own property in the vicinity. They don’t get a little postcard indicating that this is up for a vote. They’re a constantly changing group of people that certainly includes clergy, workers and parishioners of St. Thomas Aquinas Cathedral; students, staff, and parents connected to the Honors Academy of Literature; tenants and clients of the businesses located in the historic Twentieth Century Club building; and tenants, guests, and patrons of neighboring apartments and nearby businesses.
But due to the street’s location opposite the Truckee River in the heart of downtown, those potentially affected also include residents of the entire region and endless streams of visitors who flock to this area on any number of occasions.
As a result, anyone who is presuming to determine whether “the public” will be materially injured needs to base that determination on as many facts as possible. So let’s add a little more information to the mix, shall we?
Context is critical.
One of my primary goals in the Brief is to provide context to help all of us more thoroughly and accurately evaluate the matters that come before us. That context is especially necessary when it comes to this particular abandonment request since the Staff Report evaluates it from a very narrow perspective. The discussion concludes that the City would ultimately benefit by gaining more public spaces on the street than exist now (there are currently 11 metered spaces, but more on that below); that a vehicular easement would still allow traffic to move through one-way from south to north; and that they’d get a few benches, trash cans, and landscaping out of the deal. The City estimates the potential reduction in maintenance costs at $2400-$3000 per year (which is easily offset by parking meter revenue).
In a vacuum, that might sound like a good deal. But streets don’t exist in vacuums, and neither do individual City Council decisions—this one included.
So I want to bring up four contextual issues that it’s important to consider when trying to determine whether the public would be materially injured by this action.
Issue #1: A questionable baseline
Could the public be materially injured if the City of Reno is not evaluating the loss of this public property on the basis of its full potential value under City ownership?
The Staff Report posits the proposed configuration as a net gain for public parking, noting that Stevenson Street currently has only 11 meters. But that’s not its full parking capacity. Staff indicates that five meters were removed from the east side of the street in 2021 during construction of the adjacent apartment complex, and if this abandonment is denied, that those meters would be replaced for a total of 16 parking meters on the street. But there are actually a total of ten unmetered parking spaces in front of the new(ish) Mod 2. There’s another unmetered space in front of the Mod. If all of those spaces got meters, you’d already be up to 22 metered public spaces.
Then there’s the west side of the street, formerly occupied by the Greyhound station. The curbs and meter locations on that side are still configured as they were when the station was there and the number of public spaces was limited by the need to include two driveways, a loading zone, and an extended red curb along the building’s entrance. That leaves only seven metered spaces on the west side.
People constantly park in the old “no parking” zones and along the old driveway cutouts; they just don’t pay for it. I don’t know why the City hasn’t taken the opportunity over the past five years to repaint the curbs and add more marked spaces and meters on that side, but it certainly seems within their power to do so.
The upshot here is that the City has not nearly maximized the capacity of this street for metered public parking spaces as it stands, and could add many more spots—well over 22—by introducing diagonal or perpendicular parking (check out what was done on Thoma Street in high-demand MidTown). Unlike a parking lot, a street doesn’t require spaces to be broken up by tree islands, and there’s plenty of room for even more trees in the planting strips, which of course we all want. Plus, Stevenson Street is located within Redevelopment District #1, which the City is projecting will soon be flooded with plenty of revenue sufficient to make these changes and more.
But don’t get too hung up on those numbers or constraints—the number of public parking spaces promised for the immediate vicinity is actually much higher than that.
#2: Promises not kept
Could the public be materially injured if this action would prevent the City from meeting a pre-existing obligation to replace public parking that it eliminated?
Not mentioned at all in this Staff Report is the fact that the City of Reno approved the elimination of more than 60 public parking spaces across the street from this very site when agreeing to sell its public parking lot on West Second Street to Jacobs Entertainment in 2021. (That action didn’t require a finding of “no material injury,” by the way, because it was a sale rather than an abandonment.)
Jacobs’ unsolicited offer to purchase that City parking lot in order to build its in-progress apartment building on the corner of West Second and Arlington touched off immediate concern back in 2019 as a This is Reno article reported with this aerial view.
Expressing great concern about the potential loss of this lot in July 2019 was Father Chuck Durante, Rector at St. Thomas Aquinas Cathedral, which is located directly across the street from it. Father Chuck, as he’s fondly known, has become a key spokesperson for the public and especially for those who use and visit the cathedral.
As Father Chuck explained in the July 31, 2019 meeting (you can start viewing the segment here), the needs of his parishioners for parking is not just confined to Sundays. The cathedral brings people—including substantial numbers of tourists—to the neighborhood on weekdays, as well. They do have their own small parking lot tucked behind the church but it is often full (the Honors Academy of Literature operates in the historic St. Thomas Aquinas School on the cathedral’s south side).
Back in 2019, Father Chuck asked that a condition be added to the sale of the City’s West Second Street lot to study the area’s parking needs along with a provision that public and/or church parking be provided. He also said that Lori Miles of the City’s real estate office had assured him that Jacobs Entertainment intended to meet with the church to discuss their parking needs, and that those needs would be incorporated into any plan. The Mayor seemed much more interested in talking about the area motels and whether Father Chuck personally “worked” at them, but after clearly explaining his constituency’s concerns about parking and the role of the Catholic Church in the community, he was finally told by the Mayor, “Okay, Father. I’m sure that Mr. Jacobs, if he should acquire this property, that he will work with you.”
However, when Father Chuck returned again to Council on July 28, 2021 as the City was voting to finalize that sale and stated his continued desire to resolve the parking issue, he said no one had discussed it with him since 2019. Councilmember Jenny Brekhus explained why the City lot was a necessary public resource and Councilmember Naomi Duerr asked Jacobs representative Garrett Gordon to explain the company’s plan for some kind of shared parking to offset the loss of the lot (which was available every day and, like other City-owned spaces, free for use on Sundays).
After misstating the number of parking spaces in the City lot (he estimated it as “very little…maybe 30 or 40” while it was in fact more than 60), Gordon said that after the 2019 Council meeting, “I left [Father Chuck Durante] a message and assured him that…when this development moves forward, if he loses his parking, then we would find a way to help him out with some replacement parking. Certainly a vast ten-block redevelopment project will have many parking opportunities, so I stand here today on the record saying that we will continue to work with him and find a place for him and his parishioners to park on Sundays.”
When Councilmember Duerr asked for further clarification, Gordon said this:
“But remember, though, this is a public lot, so it’s not just his interests, it would be—so I think that’s why this body, wisely, like the California [Avenue?] district, no longer requires parking. I think your last Master Plan even has expanded that, of not requiring parking. So yes, this district will have parking. Yes, we’ll be happy to work with Father on alternative locations, I can give you my word today.”
So what happened to that pledge? The City could have included a requirement for Jacobs to provide public (or public/private) parking on or near West Second Street in its Development Agreement with the company, but it did not. Jacobs Entertainment obviously has developed a plethora of parking lots in the meantime, but none are currently designated as available for use (much less 24/7 use) by the public.
Furthermore, that may have been a “public pledge” made by Jacobs Entertainment in 2021, but the City of Reno sold them the parking lot that elicited the pledge, and it seems to me that the City of Reno remains obligated to ensure that the lost 60+ spaces of public parking are replaced in the vicinity—by the City or some other entity—BEFORE disposing of the only remaining piece of City property in the area that could be used for any appreciable amount of public parking.
[And let me add that even an offer by Jacobs Entertainment to allow the public to use any of its parking lots would not ensure their permanent availability without a legally-binding agreement, as we do not yet know whether any of those lots are permanent, or just placeholders until some kind of tax-generating development is constructed there. Hello, long-promised “Master Plan”?]
Issue #3: Increasing demand for public parking in the area
Could the public be materially injured if the City takes an action that will hinder the ongoing or future use of area properties or its ability to meet future demands for public parking?
Since that 2021 pledge, the public’s demand for parking in this vicinity has not decreased; indeed, in the intervening four years, the addition of new apartment buildings on this and adjacent blocks has already increased demand for street parking. If the builders of area apartments don’t build enough parking to meet the demands of their tenants, then those tenants (and their guests) are already competing with the general public for parking along the streets. That’s fine, but it raises demand.
And in this area in particular, that demand will only increase in the years to come. Why? Because the surrounding area is still largely undeveloped. Those vacant lots and buildings include multiple parcels within a one-block radius—not just the vacant parcels on the street’s west side but also the vast expanse of Jacobs-owned land on the north side of West Second Street, and the City-owned Lear Theater, one block away on the corner of West First Street and Riverside Drive.
Here’s a 360-degree view starting with that vacant lot on the west side of Stevenson Street, moving across the street itself, and then circling around to a view of the north side of West Second Street. Be sure to note all the empty space on West Second Street. Even with the addition of the affordable housing that Jacobs Entertainment has a tentative deal to construct for the Reno Housing Authority along that street, that leaves a lot of undeveloped land, not to mention all the space to its north.
Directly to the south is the Truckee River, itself a wildly popular destination that is only destined for greater use with the adoption of the Truckee River Vision Plan, also to be reviewed at the September 11 Council meeting. While specific plans to improve Wingfield and Barbara Bennett Parks remain in progress, their constant use for recreation and special events by Reno’s ever-expanding population is assured.
With its location in the historic Powning Conservation District, this site has its own unique needs as well. Three buildings listed in the National Register, dating from the 1910s to 1930s—the St. Thomas Aquinas Cathedral complex, the Twentieth Century Club Building, and the First Church of Christ, Scientist (Lear Theater)—are located within a block (and just one block further west on Bell Street is another National Register-listed building, the historic Bethel AME Church). Built at a time of much lower population density and parking demands, they require special consideration in order to ensure their viability in the years to come. That means providing them with sufficient parking to ensure these buildings can remain viable, whether in a use they have performed for more than a century (the cathedral), adaptive reuse as offices for multiple tenants (Twentieth Century Club), or future uses as yet undetermined (the Lear Theater, Bethel AME Church). This current plan proposes to reserve one spot each for the Twentieth Century Club and cathedral.
Now picture this: The abandonment is granted, 68 parking spaces are created on Stevenson Street, and the west side of the street is developed, leaving only 22 spaces for public use. It’s a random weekday and all those 22 spaces are filled, but 40 of the spaces reserved for private use only are wide open and unused. But if anyone from the public decides to park in one, they’ll get towed. Would those costs be material?
Issue #4: Unforeseen or unstated repercussions
Could the public be materially injured by any unstated repercussions of this action?
Another question to consider is what impact the City’s abandonment of this street would have on the public beyond what the Staff Report states. Since the east side of the street is already developed, that largely depends on what’s built on the western side. As you can see from Exhibit B: Abandonment Area, the abandonment would be split into three different “abandonment parcels” that would be attached to the three separate parcels that line the street. Two parcels on the east side would be divided at their property line. The third abandonment parcel would run the entire west side of Stevenson Street, extending that parcel’s property line 40 feet eastward.
Even if the owners of that parcel agreed to never build upon the land relinquished by the City to them, how else might this act impact what’s constructed there? Financially speaking, providing a landowner with 23 private parking spaces at no cost is a major handout at a time when creating a single parking space in a surface lot can cost from $5,000 to $10,000, and in a parking garage anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000.
That outlay is not required in order for the owner of the adjacent parcel to develop it; on the contrary, there are no minimum parking requirements for development in this zoning district. That’s aligned with future-minded urban zoning, which strives to reduce reliance on cars and also make it cheaper to build housing. But is it fiscally responsible (much less in accordance with the City’s Master Plan) to require a builder to construct no off-street parking on their own property and then turn around and give them City land for private parking spaces that the public can’t even use?
Additionally, the owner of the property on the street’s west side, Kromer Investments, has been buying up other parcels on the block between Stevenson and Ralston Streets, suggesting the intent to construct a project that might eventually span the entire block. What’s built there will likely be allowed via zoning and won’t require additional public review. How can anyone evaluate the potential impact of this action without having any idea what one of the recipients even intends to build, and when?
So could the public be materially injured by the abandonment of Stevenson Street? And more importantly, can you—or anyone—say with certainty that they would not be?
You can attend Wednesday’s meeting in person or via Zoom by registering here. Public comment can also be delivered using the online form at Reno.Gov/PublicComment; by emailing Publiccomment@reno.gov; or by leaving a voicemail at 775-393-4499.
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.
Thanks for this detailed analysis. I submitted a No comment to the Council yesterday. I suspect that, as usual, corporate interests will prevail.