Spotlight: The Reno Planning Commission

An interview with former Planning Commissioner Mark Johnson

The City of Reno has been engaging in some important work over the past month including finalizing the ward redistricting process. I’ll have more to say about that and its implications at a future date. But in the meantime, we have a special guest today in the Briefing room. As I’ve mentioned in the past, my husband, Mark Johnson, served on the City of Reno’s Planning Commission, and a few weeks ago, he completed eight years of service on that body. 

The Planning Commission plays a central role in the development of our community, and I think it’s perhaps one of the least understood bodies in our city government. So now that his two terms have ended, I asked if he might be willing to share some insights about the experience, to help residents get a clearer sense of the commission’s role in development and how we can all participate in its deliberations. And I thought the best way to do that might be by interviewing him. So here we go!

First of all, Mark, I want to thank you for letting me interview you. Over the past eight years, you’ve obviously become an authority on what Reno’s Planning Commission is and does.  So how would you describe the role of the Planning Commission?

The Planning Commission is arguably the most powerful unelected body in the City, with final approval authority over land use and development standards.  Unless a project requires a change to a Master Plan designation, a decision by the Planning Commission is the final word (unless appealed to Council). 

The City provides a short description of the commission: 

“The Reno City Planning Commission advises the City Council on the long term physical development of the City including such issues as natural resources, economics, housing, population, land use and zoning. The Planning Commission reviews all major development projects proposed within the City and also provides a forum for public comment on issues dealing with development of our community.”

The second portion of that description is the most familiar part of what the commission does—hold public meetings to review major development projects.  This is part of what is known as the “entitlement process” where development that is not expressly allowed in the code or due to its location, size, function, or type is submitted for review as an additional “entitlement” to the property. 

I think that’s an important thing to understand, that the Planning Commission doesn’t review all development projects.

Correct. There are projects that are “allowed by right,” and there are projects that require entitlements that require discretionary review—either through a staff process or by Planning Commission and/or City Council.  The term “allowed by right” is definitely a concept that requires some explanation. The Master Plan and development code were written to encourage development that meets the goals of the City.  When something is “allowed by right,” that means the type of project (housing, warehouse, casino, etc.) and the location where it is proposed align with the stated goals.  Unless some secondary code concern such as residential adjacency, hillside development, etc. is a part of the project, there is no public review as it is “allowed by right.”  As a result, many projects can be constructed without any public review.  

Not all projects that require entitlements go before the Planning Commission—just the “major” ones. Some categories of entitlements are publicly noticed but are reviewed and decided by City staff without being seen by the Planning Commission. The commission reviews the larger items such as tentative maps (for projects including more than four parcels), conditional use permits (such as a commercial development next to a residentially zoned property), “major” site plan review (for larger projects or impacts), or deviations that alter code requirements by more than 10%, as well as zoning and Master Plan changes.

So what role does the public play in all of this?

Because of the nature of the projects heard at Planning Commission, and the impact on adjacent properties, there is typically public comment provided.  To accommodate, the meetings are held in Council Chambers in the evening at a time that is more convenient to most community members.  Members of the public are actively encouraged by the City to attend Planning Commission meetings for projects occurring near them through direct mailings (the yellow postcard) and signs posted on the impacted site (those lovely yellow boards with the City logo at the top).  Each project on the agenda is presented to the commission by the “applicant” with additional information provided by City staff.  After the presentations, the commission calls for public comment prior to the start of commissioner questions and discussion.  

The public comment portion is integral to the review process and often brings up items that may not have been addressed by the applicant or considered by the staff.  While the bylaws of the commission and Robert’s Rules of Order prevent direct question and answer between the public and the commission, the topics raised frequently become the basis for the deliberations and approval/denial of the project.

Can you explain how a person becomes a Planning Commissioner?

Because of the Planning Commission’s level of authority, the composition of the Planning Commission is different than other Boards and Commissions in the City as it matches the ward structure of the City Council, with each councilmember appointing (through a recommendation to the City Manager) a member to the Planning Commission.  Those members must then be approved in a vote by the City Council.  I believe the intent of this approach is to allow the Council an opportunity to appoint members from their own wards in order to provide insight on issues that may be ward-specific—although this is not a requirement. 

I want to thank Councilwoman Naomi Duerr who appointed me as the Ward 2 representative in 2015 and reappointed me for a second term in 2019. 

Can you talk about what qualifications Planning Commissioners need to have?

There are no qualifications required to be on the Planning Commission.  So while I agree that the composition of the Planning Commission should include members from throughout the entire City, I firmly believe that additional qualifications should be considered for these appointments.  Most of the information presented to the commission is technical in nature—dealing with complex issues such as zoning, traffic, utilities, design aesthetics, site grading, population growth, property rights, business activities, and code compliance.  

As the commission is responsible for “advising the City Council” on these technical items, the appointed members should have a background in or familiarity with development of the physical environment—and an ability to read plans.  And even then, there is a steep learning curve. 

For each project on the Planning Commission agenda, staff provides a report for the project that includes a description of the project, location maps, plans as appropriate, review comments from city agencies (Police, Fire, Engineering, etc.) and other governmental agencies (WCSD, RTC, NDOT, etc.), conditions and findings required for approval, and public comment received in advance of the meeting.  These reports can be dozens of pages long to include all of the pertinent information.  For meetings with several items on the agenda, the packets are often hundreds of pages.  Commissioners are also provided access to the full application which typically includes additional plans, description, and technical documents.  As a result, the preparation for a meeting can take several hours to fully understand the project and prepare questions.

Mark Johnson, AIA LEED Green Associate

How do you feel that your own professional background and experience helped you on the commission?

Working as an Architect in Northern Nevada since 1992 has given me a lot of experience with master planning, site analysis and building design—which provided a great foundation in understanding the development that comes before the commission.  However, most of my work has been public projects (WCSD, UNR, National Guard) that typically do not need review by a Planning Commission—or are reviewed and approved prior to our involvement.  An example is the new DMV building I was the project architect for in South Reno.  The building is located in the South Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved by the City of Reno in 1995—20+ years before we started our design work.  

So while I did not have much experience going through the entitlement process, I thought, how much harder can it be to review and comment on the appropriateness of a potential warehouse building or multi-family development than it is to design a new school?  I quickly realized that I was comparing apples and celery—I may be standing in the right grocery aisle, but the skills required were on different sides of that aisle.  So while I could visualize the projects based on the plans submitted and descriptions provided, I can honestly say that it took over 6 months (12+ meetings) to feel comfortable with the terminology and process for projects submitted for review. 

As a planning commissioner, you were involved in a major update to the City’s Master Plan. What was significant about that, and what do you think of the update?

The 2017 ‘ReImagine Reno’ Master Plan was created through a multi-year process that involved thousands of community members.  It replaced a document that was 20 years old and is expected to be the guiding document for the City for the next 20 years.  

As a Planning Commission member during the process, we had at least a dozen meetings to review the document.  Those included staff presentations on various sections, public hearings on the drafts, and joint meetings with City Council to discuss and comment.  Overall, the new Master Plan is a really good document that provides a solid tool to help guide the community to its desired outcomes, but the general nature of the document means it is open to interpretation that may create outcomes that were not the original intent.

Such as?

Not establishing priorities.  A bit of context—for the Planning Commission, approval or disapproval of a project is to be based on findings.  A commissioner has to make the findings in order to approve the project.  If any one of the findings cannot be made, the commissioner is to vote against the project.  And any time a commissioner votes against a project, they are supposed to state the finding that cannot be made, for the record.

The findings are set by statute and vary somewhat between approvals—but all of them include “General Review and Considerations” that require compliance with the following:

1. Consistency with the Reno Master Plan

2. Compliance with Title 18 (the development code)

3. Mitigates Traffic Impacts

4. Provides Safe Environment

5. Rational Phasing Plan

Items 2-5 are usually straightforward from a review standpoint—does the project meet code, are traffic issues addressed, is pedestrian safety included, and will a large project work if only the first phase is constructed?  It is possible to argue these points —traffic being the most common since the interpretation of “mitigation” is different depending on priorities—but usually a yes or no determination can be made.  However, making the first finding regarding consistency with the Master Plan is where the general nature of that document can create issues.

The full description of the finding that asks to evaluate a project’s consistency with the Master Plan is as follows: 

The ReImagine Reno Master Plan does not prioritize the policies in the Master Plan—so when the applicant presentation or staff report indicates what Master Plan policies the project supports, they just provide a list.  Considering the general nature of most of the policies, especially the Citywide Policies, almost any project can be shown to be consistent with the Master Plan.  

For instance, imagine that you want to increase the size of a warehousing operation by expanding onto an adjacent parcel, and doing so requires rezoning that parcel to allow that use. Master Plan Policy 1.2C “Existing Businesses” and 1.2G “Business Retention and Attraction” support that.  But if that expansion brings the project closer to or eliminates residential zoned property, the competing policies 4.1A “Housing Options” and EA-ILA.3 “Residential Compatibility” may not support the project.  The Master Plan does not indicate which policies are most important, providing no guidance on how to “weigh” those competing policies, and does not clarify what “public benefit” should be cited to allow for approval.   

I do have a recommendation for how this issue should be addressed, and I used it on several decisions: prioritize the Area-Specific Policies over the Citywide Policies.  If a parcel has been designated in the Master Plan as part of a Neighborhood Center (like Lakeside and Moana), the University District, or on an Urban Corridor (like 4th Street) or Greenway—the policies tied to those areas are more specific in their language and should carry more weight when compared with a Citywide policy.

Did the update to the Master Plan have any other unintended consequences that you find concerning?

Not so much a concern as an observation.  When the Master Plan was being developed, the City wanted to maximize the amount of land available for manufacturing and industrial activities.  Much of that land was identified in the North Valleys along the North Virginia and I-580 corridor north of Golden Valley.  Based on that land being rezoned for industrial uses, the small-scale mix of housing, storage, and warehousing along that corridor was replaced with a continuous pattern of large-scale logistics centers—many of which can be seen from I-580. The scale of that type of development—especially on land that is not flat—and the type of traffic it generates in a concentrated area was not something I anticipated when the plan was being considered.  

I know that the City’s Annexation and Land Development Code was updated in conjunction with that Master Plan update. Can you talk about that process?

After the ReImagine Reno master plan was approved, the City had to update the Annexation and Land Development Code—often referred to as Title 18—which is the document that provides “appropriate and reasonable controls for the development and use of land in Reno.”  

The changes to Master Plan designations and zoning districts in the Master Plan were the driving force behind the update, but the modifications were far more extensive— including revisions to the entitlement process, land development restrictions, allowable uses, and building requirements.  For this update, the City worked with a number of focus groups who would be impacted by the changes, with the Planning Commission receiving updates and being asked to review and recommend updates to Council.  

What were some of the implications of those changes?

Overall, the update simplified the code and made it clearer for everyone to understand, but I do believe that some of the streamlining of review processes, or shifting authority to the “Administrator” (City Staff), has eliminated some opportunity for public input and makes the process more sympathetic to developers.  The City even changed the name of the planning department from “Community Development” to “Development Services”—a not-so-subtle nod to the focus of the department.  Don’t get me wrong—I am in favor of development, my profession depends on it—but I do not think that an extra few weeks to receive approval from the Planning Commission as opposed to staff sign-off is a barrier to projects being developed.

Any other concerns you have about the current development code?

I do have a couple of issues, both of which were voiced by myself and others during the process and afterward.  First, annexations to the City of Reno are only reviewed at the Council level—which makes no sense considering that the very definition of the role of the commission is to “advise the City Council on the long term physical development of the City.”  When this item was recommended during the update process, the Council leaned on the “fiscal benefit” portion of the annexation review as a reason why the Planning Commission should not be a required review.  However, I challenge anyone to read the requirements for annexation review considerations (Section 18.08.401.(c).(4)) and determine that input from the commission is not appropriate. 

The second issue is the complete lack of any sustainability requirements for development in the City of Reno beyond what is required by the building code.  The preliminary drafts of the document included recommendations for sustainable development that were modest and reasonable (if a little hard to ensure implementation) but were removed from the final version by the City Council based on objections from the commercial development community.  For a City that likes to brag about its LEED Gold Certification, the lack of any meaningful requirements for the built environment (beyond City-owned facilities) is, in my view, unacceptable.  

So the City is still planning to revise sections of the development code?

Yes. At one of my last meetings, staff noted that the City is embarking on a Text Amendment process to make revisions to portions of the development code that may not be working well.  They are reconvening a number of the working groups from the original code update and looking at additional areas that were not significantly changed—such as the sign code.  While no public hearings have been scheduled to my knowledge, any Text Amendment will need to go before both the Planning Commission and City Council for discussion and approval. I plan to advocate for changes to both the annexation requirements and sustainability requirements and would recommend that readers advocate for changes they prioritize as well.

Anything else about the Planning Commission that you would like people to know?

On a lighter note, hopefully this discussion has dispelled the notion that the Planning Commission is responsible for the projects that are presented at the meetings—it is not.  The commission is responsible for the review of projects that are submitted to the City, not the actual projects.  And in the rare instance where a commissioner is connected in some way to a project or property owner, that commissioner will disclose the relationship and, if necessary, recuse from the decision.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (TMRPA) and their work in the region. I served for four years on the Regional Planning Commission as one of three representatives from the City of Reno, working with planning commissioners from Washoe County, the City of Sparks, and the staff of TMRPA to update the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan and review projects of regional significance from all three jurisdictions. Having the opportunity to look at projects from a regional level was an interesting counterpoint to the granular detail that was required for review of projects on the City Planning Commission.  If anyone is interested in the big picture development across our entire region—and some excellent graphics—they should check out the TMRPA Annual Report.  Additionally, TMRPA is embarking on an update to the Regional Plan—if residents want to learn more, I recommend attending some of their upcoming events. 

Any final takeaways from eight years on the Planning Commission?

My biggest takeaway from the experience is that most people care deeply about development that immediately impacts where they live, be it added density, traffic, views, open space, trails, or parking.  However, extending that same concern for citywide issues is not very common.  Hopefully readers of The Barber Brief can help change that metric by engaging on many of the broader issues that are presented!

Also, something to keep in mind as more development occurs—all of the “easy” land is gone.  If a property is easy to develop, it has been.  Moving forward, any new development in Reno, whether it is infill or greenfield (on previously undeveloped land), will be complicated.  Infill projects will struggle with issues such as utility and infrastructure upgrades, property acquisitions, and neighborhood opposition, while greenfield development will have to address issues like sloped terrain, public service and utility extensions, and traffic—with both having to deal with construction costs. 

I honestly believe that the commissioners and staff I worked with throughout the past eight years were sensitive to these concerns and did their best to balance these issues with the development requests that were submitted.  I may not always have agreed with staff recommendations or my fellow commissioners, but I appreciated the different perspectives that were presented and was encouraged by the thoughtful and civil deliberations that we held.  

On a personal level, I feel like I had some impact by focusing on design in the projects we reviewed—and I do appreciate the patience shown by my fellow commissioners when I would go off on a tangent about some obscure design concept in the middle of Q&A.  Ultimately it was a great experience, and I learned a lot, but it is a tough task that requires a thick skin and strong sense of priorities.  

Well, I want to thank you for subjecting yourself to my questions, and on behalf of all Reno residents, I want to thank you for your service.

I appreciate that.  I do look forward to having Wednesday evenings free again!

---

As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site, subscribe for free 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, 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.