City of Reno
Nevada

Staff Report
9105

Staff Report (For Possible Action): Discussion and potential reconsideration of the December 13, 2017 adoption of the comprehensive City of Reno Master Plan consistent with Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.150 to 278.240 and repeal of existing City of Reno Master Plan.

Information

Department:City Manager - Government AffairsSponsors:Councilmember Paul McKenzie
Category:Presentation

Attachments

  1. Printout
  2. J.6 Correspondence re 1-10-18

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Recommendation: I move to reconsider the Council's adoption of the comprehensive City of Reno Master Plan at the December 13, 2017 Council Meeting.

 

Proposed Motion:  I move to approve staff recommendation.

Staff Report Formal Body

Summary: Councilmember Paul McKenzie has requested that the City Council’s vote to adopt a new City of Reno Master Plan at the December 13, 2017, City Council meeting be reconsidered.  This agenda item will provide the City Council with the option to have the master plan adoption reconsidered at a future City Council meeting.

 

Previous Council Action:  At the December 13, 2017, City Council meeting, under Item F.2, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt a new comprehensive City of Reno Master Plan consistent with Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) 278.150 to 278.240 and repeal the existing City of Reno Master Plan. 

 

Discussion:  Pursuant to Reno City Charter and the Rules of the Reno City Council an affirmative City Council vote may be reconsidered.  According to Section 7.7.5 of the newly adopted Rules of the Reno City Council, effective January 1, 2018, there are certain requirements for a reconsideration motion which are satisfied for this request.  Section 7.7.5 requires the following:

 

A motion to reconsider the passage of a main motion may be made on the day the action was taken, at a continued meeting, or at the next scheduled regular meeting of city council provided that such item is properly noticed for action on such future agenda.  In the event a member of city council desires that a matter be reconsidered at the next regularly scheduled meeting, the reconsideration question may be added to the agenda at any time prior to final printing and posting of the agenda.  A motion to reconsider must be made by a council member on the prevailing side of the question, but may be seconded by any member. A motion to reconsider, having been put and lost, shall not be renewed either by the mover or by any other member of the council. . . . [emphasis added]

 

Pursuant to the council rules, Councilmember McKenzie requested that the reconsideration question be added to the next scheduled regular meeting of the City Council following the master plan adoption vote – the January 10, 2018, meeting.  If a reconsideration motion made under this item fails, there will be no further action to reconsider the December 13, 2017 adoption.  If a reconsideration motion passes, the master plan adoption agenda item would be brought back to a future council meeting to be revisited following the required NRS Chapter 278 noticing requirements for adopting a master plan.

 

Financial Implications:  None at this time.

 

Legal Implications:  Legal review completed for compliance with City procedures and Nevada Law.

Meeting History

Jan 10, 2018 10:00 AM Video Reno City Council Regular

A RECESS WAS CALLED AT 5:29 P.M. AND UPON RECONVENING AT 5:40 P.M., COUNCIL MEMBER BOBZIEN AND MAYOR SCHIEVE WERE ABSENT. VICE MAYOR JARDON PRESIDED.

The Vice Mayor called for public comment.

Ken Krater, 901 Dartmouth Drive, representing Pat Morrissey, discussed Mr. Morrissey's property on Moya Boulevard (APN 090-030-28), saying that he never received notice from the City that the land use was being changed.

Pat Morrissey, 1025 Ridgeview #200, presented a public comment form, but did not wish to speak.

MAYOR SCHIEVE PRESENT VIA REMOTE AT 5:44 P.M.

Council Member McKenzie stated that he requested the reconsideration, and explained that the zoning issue came up after the reconsideration was requested. It is something on which we need some additional discussion. The primary reason I requested reconsideration is that we have a portion of our Master Plan that calls out a partner for economic development (i.e. Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada or EDAWN). Shortly after we approved this Master Plan, it came to my attention that EDAWN was trying to create a coalition to redirect our transportation dollars within northern Nevada to subsidize a roadway to Storey County for the Tahoe Regional Industrial Center (TRIC). The goal was to get that accomplished within five years, and all we had to do is redirect our priorities. It struck me after our conversations about development in the North Valleys and the transportation issues there that EDAWN would be out trying to create a coalition to change our direction in addressing our infrastructure without coming to the elected officials to get some support for that initiative. EDAWN is supposed to be our partner, and we have them listed in our Master Plan as such. My reason for asking for a reconsideration is that if they do not want to be our partner they should not be in our Master Plan because that Master Plan attachment to them is what leads them to believe that we should continue to support them. If they are unwilling to support us, I do not think we should be supporting them. The issue of a Master Plan and zoning became an issue shortly after I had requested reconsideration and I specifically asked the question if we had Master Plan overlays that affected the underlying zoning when we were considering this, and maybe I misunderstood the answer, but the way I understood it is that the only place we had that was where we were putting the new Master Plan designation. The instance Mr. Krater addressed is a clear example of one area that is an old Master Plan (Industrial) over the top of an old zoning (Residential), and both of those still exist today. One way or another, to get use of their property they are going to have to go through a process for a Master Plan amendment or a zoning change, and is it appropriate for us to ask every person out there that we affected like this to have to go through the process and expend money to do that process for them to be able to use their property? I would like to have staff explain what our plans are for that process going forward. We do not know how many other properties are affected in this way and that to me is problematic for property owners in our community.

Council Member Brekhus said that we worked long and hard on this and we ended the year on a great success. It was unfortunate for me to see it come back on an issue. I was curious what it was. I do not dispute that perhaps we all need to be a little more informed, participatory in the economic development initiatives going on in this community. However, when you talk about the road issue, the transportation issue, and I watched the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Board meeting where this was discussed, I think your issue is an RTC issue and a transportation planning issue. It appeared that there were members on that RTC Board who knew what was going on and were participating in it. If our RTC representatives are not aware of what is going on, what your Executive Director is doing, then I think we have an issue there. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the City of Reno is in a vacuum of where they are on these projects. I watched the discussion about this road and it was Deja vu all over again. As the ball got rolling on the Southeast Connector, Reno was not fully on board and even amended its Master Plan to show that as a road right-of-way. In fact, Reno had pulled it out of their Master Plan. Let us take our Master Plan and implement it on our transportation values. Is it for mega projects that are going to open up other parts of the valley or get Spanish Springs people wherever they need to go next? We need to discuss Reno's needs. Reno's needs are very spotty. There are hot spots all over the Wards. That is how we achieve our infill goals. I do not see this as an EDAWN process or a Master Plan process; I see this as an RTC issue that needs to be taken care of over there.

Sienna Reid, Community Development Senior Planner, explained in detail the Master Plan process that occurred between September of 2016 through September of 2017, including the public process and meetings with property owners that occurred during that process. Ms. Reid specifically addressed the Moya Boulevard property and why it was designated Industrial. She outlined statute regarding noticing requirements and the notice by publication that was done, noting that sending notices to all of the property owners would have cost upwards of $600,000. An extensive amount of outreach was conducted through the Imagine Reno process, and statute dictates that we have a full year to bring the zoning map into conformance with the Master Plan. Changes will be brought forward in the future, probably in geographic blocks, and the Council can determine whether the zoning is appropriate. Ms. Reid said that there are approximately 85,000 parcels in the City of Reno, approximately 6% of which will need a zone change. She suggested that the City could commit to not charging for zone changes that are necessitated by the updated Master Plan.

Council Member McKenzie said that the Master Plan created burdens on property owners that were not there before, and he wanted to ensure that there was a process in place to address those issues moving forward.

Council Members Brekhus and Duerr and Ms. Reid discussed the plan for bringing back any conformance issues and necessary fixes.

Council Member McKenzie stated that he would like to see EDAWN taken out of the Master Plan.

Vice Mayor Jardon said that for those that did watch the RTC meeting, she too was frustrated with the meetings about the TRIC road, the lack of involvement from the City of Reno representatives in those meetings, and most certainly with the representation presented in writing about what could happen and what the groups' intentions or beliefs were. Those were calmed for me after the RTC meeting because virtually every member, whether it was the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) or the County Commissioner who happened to be in the meeting, came out and said on the record that they did not have the same understanding of what came out of that meeting. A number of representatives also said that they believe Mr. Mike Kazmierski's representation might have been ahead of his skis. I agree with that. The priority for our region is the Spaghetti Bowl, and that needs to remain a priority. That was very clear and NDOT affirmed that. If we want to discuss our concerns with EDAWN, our involvement with them and our contribution to them, we should have that discussion separately. I know we have already committed to an amount for this fiscal year, but maybe at the next budget cycle or before the next budget cycle. We do not have to open our Master Plan to do that. We do, however, need to elevate the conversation with our economic development partner in a respectful but effective way.

Council Member Duerr noted that these are organizational relationships and it was one individual who made a mistake. They have to figure out a way to work it back and develop a better working relationship with us. I agree this is not a good thing, but I do not think it rises to the level of opening the Master Plan.

Council Member Delgado said that it is more of a staffing issue than an organizational issue, but we definitely need to have that conversation, perhaps during the fiscal process.

COUNCIL MEMBER BOBZIEN PRESENT AT 6:15 P.M.

Council Member McKenzie said that if this was a one-time incident it would not rise to this level, but this is something that we are continually dealing with. The director of EDAWN started an initiative and is trying to become a policy maker. He surrounds himself with a group of people like the Governor's Office of Economic Development (GOED), and presents to the NDOT Board that this is where we need to put our priorities. I am frustrated with RTC as well because our Executive Director applied for a federal grant to acquire ground for this roadway after receiving specific direction from the RTC Board not to pursue a road to TRIC without first getting Storey County's buy-in and bringing it back to us for consideration.

Council Member McKenzie said that he was willing to withdraw his request for reconsideration for this item, but we need to have a discussion about the individual at EDAWN that is creating the issue.

RESULT:WITHDRAWN