🏡 ADUs in Reno: They Are Coming, Are We Ready?

As city leaders move forward on accessory dwelling units, residents weigh the benefits—and the growing pains.

After years of debate and delay, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)—also known as granny flats, casitas, or backyard homes—are a part of Reno’s housing strategy. In April, the Reno City Council drafted an ADU ordinance, and at the June 11 council meeting, ADUs, as well as related state Assembly bills AB 131 and AB 396, were discussed. The ordinance is under review. Here’s what you need to know.

🏛️ What Happened in Carson City

• AB 131, which would have provided property tax exemptions for homeowners who rent ADUs to voucher recipients, died again during the legislative session—the second time in a row. It’s expected to return in the 2027 legislative session.

• AB 396 was passed and includes prescriptive requirements for cities. Though heavily amended, it still mandates that cities:

  • Pass an ADU ordinance.

  • Limit parking requirements to no more than one space per ADU.

  • Ensure setbacks are no more restrictive than for the main home.

🏡 What the Reno City Council Did

• In April 2025, the City Council reviewed and voted to advance a draft accessory dwelling unit (ADU) ordinance, which would allow accessory dwelling units in single-family zones, albeit with certain restrictions, such as lot size and requirements, pending further details.

• That draft was sent to both the Reno Planning Commission and undergo additional public feedback, with staff expected to incorporate community input before bringing it back to the Council for official adoption.

• Reno officials said our new ordinance aligns well with these requirements. A Councilmember noted that Reno was the last major city in Nevada to adopt ADUs and called the move a “bold step” after a six-year political detour.

🧭 The Debate: Are ADUs a Housing Fix or a Neighborhood Risk?

✅ Pros of ADUs

• Increases housing supply without sprawl.

• Great for multi-generational families, caregivers, or young renters.

• They can offer supplemental income to homeowners.

• They use existing infrastructure more efficiently.

⚠️ Cons of ADUs

• Can stress parking and utilities in older neighborhoods.

• Some residents feel it erodes the character of single-family zoning.

• Narrow streets will become more congested due to cars from ADU occupants.

• Limited street parking, especially in older neighborhoods not designed for higher density.

• Emergency vehicle access is impacted when more cars are parked curbside, as it prevents them from safely navigating properties.

• Public safety is impacted by increased density without upgrades to road width, lighting, and drainage.

🏙️ The Reno (draft) Ordinance and Parking

• AB 396, which Reno’s draft ADU ordinance is modeled to comply with, limits cities to requiring no more than one off-street parking space per ADU, sparking pushback from residents in some cities due to these exact concerns.

• During the council meeting, Council Members discussed setbacks and parking, demonstrating awareness of potential impacts on neighborhood infrastructure. However, traffic and emergency access were not explicitly discussed in-depth in the June 11 meeting.

🛏️ Are ADUs Just Becoming Airbnbs?

One growing concern around ADUs is their potential use as short-term rentals through platforms like Airbnb or Vrbo. While ADUs are often promoted as a way to expand affordable, long-term housing, critics argue that without strict oversight, many of them end up serving tourists, not locals. This trend can undermine housing goals by reducing the number of units available to residents and driving up neighborhood rents. In many cities, it's more profitable for homeowners to list their ADU on a nightly basis than to rent it to a full-time tenant. That’s why some communities have adopted regulations banning or limiting short-term rentals in ADUs, especially in single-family zones.

🏙️ The Reno (draft) Ordinance and STRs

Reno’s draft ADU ordinance addresses short-term rentals in relation to ADUs.

• The draft ordinance includes provisions that regulate ADUs used as short-term rentals (e.g., vacation or nightly rentals).

• It does not regulate short-term rentals in primary residences, focusing enforcement only on accessory units.

This means homeowners may still rent their main home via Airbnb/Vrbo without restriction, but if they list their ADU, it would be governed by the new ordinance.

🗣️ Community Voices

At the council meeting, Pablo Nava-Duron, a Ward 3 resident, warned that ADUs are being wrongly sold as affordable housing. He called on the city to prioritize equity-driven planning that protects vulnerable neighborhoods from displacement.

🚧 Next Steps

• The Planning Commission is set to review the refined draft during the summer.

• Following their recommendation, the City Council will introduce and vote on the final ordinance, then it needs to be formally adopted in a future session.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

How California's Refinery Crisis Could Hit Reno Hard

Most Reno residents don’t think much about where our gasoline comes from — until it hits $5, $6, or even $7 a gallon. But with two major California oil refineries set to shut down, that price shock may be coming sooner than expected — and Reno is squarely in the danger zone.

⛽ California Cuts — Reno Pays

California is closing two major refineries — Phillips 66 (closing late 2025) and Valero (shutting down by April 2026). Together, they represent 20% of California’s refining capacity, and much of the fuel Northern Nevada uses comes from those refineries.

So when California loses fuel supply, Reno feels it fast and hard.

Gas prices in California are already the highest in the nation, and with shrinking refining capacity, the numbers being floated are staggering: $8–$10 per gallon. As California scrambles to import more oil by ship, the cost will ripple across the West.

Reno could see parallel spikes in fuel prices, transportation costs, and everyday goods.

🚛 Freight Costs and Supply Chains Will Suffer

Northern Nevada’s supply chains — from grocery distribution to construction materials — are powered by diesel and gasoline trucked in from California. When California fuel becomes more expensive or scarce, Reno’s logistics network bears the brunt of the cost. This could mean:

• Higher prices at the cash register

• Increased operating costs for small businesses

• Volatility in freight-dependent sectors like construction, agriculture, and logistics

🧯 Emergency Services Are at Risk Too

A tighter fuel supply chain means less room for error during emergencies. If a wildfire, labor strike, or global oil shock were to occur, Nevada has no major in-state refining facilities to fall back on. We rely heavily on California, which is rapidly shedding the infrastructure we depend on.

🌐 Opportunity for Nevada?

Ironically, California’s over-regulation could create an economic opportunity for Nevada. With Reno’s industrial growth, we can attract companies and investment that are fleeing California’s hostile energy policies.

• Strategic long-term investment in energy infrastructure could make Reno a regional leader in fuel logistics.

• Nevada could position itself as a more business-friendly state for fuel storage, distribution, or even small-scale refining or alternative energy processing.

• Reno’s industrial and logistics hubs (like TRIC and the North Valleys) might attract companies fleeing California’s regulations.

• Diversify its energy sources (increase fuel imports from Salt Lake City, Utah)

• Accelerate the shift to alternative transit options

• Possible push for public-private energy infrastructure projects (fuel terminals, pipelines)

• Renew debates about how much influence California’s policies should have on Nevada’s economy

⚠️ Political Reckoning Ahead?

If gas hits $7 or more in Reno while wages remain flat and housing costs rise, local leaders will feel the heat. And voters may start asking serious questions:

• Why are we so dependent on a state with self-inflicted energy shortages?

• What is Reno doing to protect its economy from fuel volatility?

• Can we trust our leadership to navigate a growing regional crisis?

💡 Bottom Line for Reno:

California’s gas crisis is no longer just a California problem — Northern Nevada is directly in the radius.

Expect higher prices, tighter supplies, and increased urgency for regional fuel planning. Without local mitigation, Reno residents may end up paying the price for Sacramento’s policies — at the pump, in the grocery store, and on their utility bills.

California’s energy crisis isn’t staying in California. It’s coming to our streets, our budgets, and our ballot boxes. Ask your politicians what they are doing.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

Reno Must Learn From San Francisco's Blight Tax

It's time to clean up downtown and make it livable again.

Once, Virginia Street was the heart of Reno. It wasn’t just where tourists came to gamble—it was where locals shopped, ate, and gathered. Casinos opened onto the street, drawing foot traffic that supported a healthy ecosystem of small businesses. Today, that street-level energy is gone. Virginia Street is lined with vacant storefronts, many of which have been shuttered for years.

Local reports, interviews, and visual surveys indicate that approximately 60–70% of storefronts have remained vacant for extended periods.

Community and business leaders have described the downtown corridor as hollowed out, particularly in the section between El Dorado, Circus Circus, and across from the now mostly fenced-off “Neon Line” properties owned by Jacobs Entertainment.

If 70% of these retail properties are vacant, Virginia Street is functionally paralyzed as a commercial corridor. This disrupts foot traffic, hurts neighboring businesses, and discourages tourism and investment.

The result? Lost tourism dollars, local frustration. The downtown core is hollow, and no one is being held accountable.

Despite years of discussion, Reno has yet to implement one of the simplest, most effective tools available: a commercial vacancy tax, also known as a blight tax.

Meanwhile, just across state lines, San Francisco took action.

💡 What San Francisco Did Differently

In 2020, San Francisco voters approved a Vacant Storefront Tax aimed at landlords who left commercial spaces empty in key neighborhood corridors. The tax applied to any storefront vacant for more than 182 days and imposed a $250 per foot of street frontage penalty in the first year, doubling each year thereafter.

However, the goal wasn't to punish—it was to encourage landlords to be realistic about their rent expectations. As SF Supervisor Aaron Peskin bluntly said:

“You don’t have to get taxed—just rent your storefront.”

It worked.
Neighborhoods like North Beach and Haight-Ashbury saw vacancy rates cut in half. In Bayview, the city waived permit fees and issued $44,000 in small business grants, helping local entrepreneurs like Vanessa Lee open restaurants in previously vacant spaces.

The results? Healthier vacancy rates, revitalized corridors, and millions in collected tax revenue now flowing back into local business support.

😞 Meanwhile, in Reno...

On Virginia Street, the situation stagnates. Properties owned by family trusts and out-of-town LLCs sit idle because the owners are either:

• Speculating on future sales, they hold on for the big payout

• Unwilling to invest in repairs, they defer maintenance or put it on the renter

• Unrealistic about rent prices – they don’t read the market well

• Holding out for the dream tenant – maybe a corporate renter will come along

They hold out despite not being able to write off unrealized rent and receiving the same write-offs regardless of whether the property is rented or not.

Even when approached by developers (as in the failed West 2nd project), they refused to sell at competitive prices. When Jacobs Entertainment entered the scene, it overpaid for properties but has failed to revitalize the area, instead letting buildings sit fenced off and deteriorating as they can’t attract developers at high prices.

What Reno Has Done

In response to the vacancy issue, the City of Reno initiated a $1 million grant program using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to assist tenants in improving vacant spaces. There has been some success in this area where tenants fixed up their spaces, but the problem persists. The Downtown Reno Partnership launched the Vacant Storefront Beautification Initiative, commissioning murals on empty storefronts to enhance the area's appeal and attract potential tenants. While well-intentioned, this isn’t nearly enough. Slapping on paint doesn’t make a property rentable. Instead, it highlights the bad situation.

San Francisco utilized the blight tax to provide significantly more assistance to tenants, with positive results.

🧾 What a Reno Blight Tax Could Look Like

San Francisco’s approach offers a blueprint:

• Apply a per-foot penalty for vacant storefronts after 6 months.

• Double the penalty each year the property remains unused.

• Reinvest the revenue into small business grants, permit waivers, and local entrepreneur support.

• Focus first on core corridors, such as Virginia Street, and then expand citywide.

🚦Time for Reno to Act

If San Francisco can turn around neighborhoods with double-digit vacancy rates, what’s stopping Reno? Our empty storefronts aren’t just eyesores—they’re lost jobs, lost opportunity, and lost tax revenue. It’s time to stop begging absentee landlords to cooperate and start making it costly to do nothing.

A blight tax works. San Francisco proved it.

Reno needs to stop studying and start doing.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

Envisioning West Reno’s Transformation

Reno needs a vision for the west downtown.

Reno has a long and tumultuous history with mega-projects promising to redefine downtown, filled with ambitious visions from charismatic developers. Unfortunately, these grandiose ventures rarely fulfill their lofty promises, often leaving taxpayers burdened and the cityscape dotted with unfinished dreams. The Neon District, the latest in a long line of these projects, is no different.

Consider the West 2nd Street District. It was pitched as a transformative development that would double the size of Reno’s downtown area, complete with artistic renderings of beautiful, tall buildings. The proposal promised vibrant public spaces and innovative infrastructures, including for residential and business. Yet despite its grand vision, the project never got off the ground.

Who could forget the Reno Expo Center? Proposed as a colossal mall, convention center, and hotel complex at the CitiCenter bus station site, also known as Partnership Plaza, which never materialized. The CitiCenter location has been the subject of numerous pie-in-the-sky redevelopment schemes, none of which have succeeded.

While RED Development eventually succeeded in transforming the site of the old Park Lane Mall, that project fell far short of its original scale. They didn’t build all of the apartments, and people complain that the rents are too high. RED serves as a reminder that initial promises often become heavily scaled-down realities, as they don’t match the economic situation.

The latest development is Jacobs Entertainment and its Neon Line vision. They started acquiring properties in Reno, west of downtown, in 2015, starting with the Gold Dust West. They promised redevelopment, including apartments. They got permits to knock down many weekly rental motels and displaced hundreds of low-income residents. After acquiring 100 properties, Jacobs has built only one property and renovated one, and has not fulfilled its promises to develop the area.

Jacobs has cited the high cost of construction, and some people say that Jacobs overpaid for the properties. This process of relying on a single developer to undertake a mega-project has not been successful. There has to be a better way to redevelop the area. If developers can’t afford to build low-income housing, perhaps we should focus on job growth and higher-paying jobs.

Office Space and Job Growth

Earlier this year, an article on NNBW discussed the low vacancy and strong state of the office space market in Reno, following the sale of two small office buildings. The article states that downtown Reno has 1.4 million sq. ft. of office space.

Let's put that in perspective. The Sales Force Tower in San Francisco spans 1.4 million square feet. One building equals all of the office space in downtown Reno. Reno has low vacancy because we have low inventory, not because of a strong market.

People often discuss the need for affordable housing, but the problem remains unsolved. Rentals in Reno are about 40% lower than in the Bay Area. I see hundreds of ads for apartment rentals, but no one can afford them. Perhaps the issue is a shortage of good-paying jobs resulting from insufficient office space. Maybe we can fix wages.

Recently, I attended Reno Startup Week. It was an inspiring event. Many people want to start businesses that offer good-paying jobs, but there is a lack of office space available for them. There are smaller Bay Area tech companies that might relocate to Reno, given the lower cost of doing business and the shorter commutes that could result from additional office space.

The campus in Palo Alto where I worked spans approximately 120 acres and features over 1 million square feet of office space. It was beautiful, park-like. A pleasure to visit. The Jacobs Neon Line zone spans approximately 120 acres. There are many empty lots in this area that, combined, are enough to build over 500,000 sq. ft. of office space, even with smaller buildings, and could add over 50% to the downtown office space.

The problem appears to be that the City Council provided Jacobs with incentives to purchase over 100 lots, demolish motels, and construct parking lots without a committed development plan for much else, and without a thorough examination of how Jacobs would finance the project.

(Note: I will be posting an article on the latest promises from Jacobs)

Reno Needs a Plan

What if the City could motivate Jacobs to sell to builders or form a joint venture with them on some of the empty lots, and Reno could develop a plan to attract office space developers and Bay Area startup companies, thereby bringing higher-paying jobs to Reno?

It would take a coordinated effort. Jacobs could provide land at a discount or offer lease subsidies for startups and growing tech firms, and deliver on their promise to redevelop the area.

Reno could incentivize the development of office space & tech hubs by offering reduced business license fees for developers who build office space and to companies that relocate.

Reno could fast-track permitting by implementing expedited approval processes for commercial developments that align with economic growth objectives.

Reno could collaborate with developers and permit mixed-use development through zoning that allows for tech parks, co-working spaces, and residential areas near commercial hubs.

Reno can promote the absence of state income tax, opportunity zone benefits, and position itself as an Emerging Tech Hub with a high quality of life, lower costs, and business-friendly policies.

What if West Reno could bring the vision of the West 2nd Street District plan to life?

Perhaps this is just another case of wishful thinking, but as I travel through the area on my way from home to downtown and see the state of the neighborhood, I realize that something needs to be done.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

🏘️ Reno Residents Are Left Out of the Hood

City Faces Backlash Over Neighborhood Advisory Board Cuts

At the June 4 Reno City Council meeting, longtime resident Lisa Hill issued a sharp critique of the city’s shrinking commitment to public participation, specifically calling out the quiet dismantling of the Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) system.

Hill said the city’s recent restructuring efforts have cut residents out of the development process, removed key forums for neighborhood input, and undermined transparency at a critical time for Reno’s future.

“As it stands right now, you’re completely removing that early public participation,” Hill told the Council.
“Developers used to present directly to the community, get feedback, and improve their projects. That’s gone.”

🧱 What NABs Are – and Why They Matter

For years, each of Reno’s wards hosted a NAB made up of appointed residents. These boards met regularly with formal agendas, heard presentations on local development proposals, and offered non-binding input to city staff and the Planning Commission. Residents could ask questions, raise concerns, and see how land use decisions affected their neighborhoods — all before final action at City Hall.

NABs also served as community sounding boards — forums where city departments gave updates on infrastructure, policing, and traffic, and where neighbors could raise issues directly with staff.

But recent restructuring — attributed by city officials to budget constraints and administrative streamlining — has led to fewer meetings, less formal notice, and fewer opportunities for community dialogue.

These resident-appointed boards:

• Reviewed proposed developments, rezonings, and infrastructure projects

• Heard directly from developers and provided input to them

• Provided input to the Ward member before projects reached the City Council

• Operated under Nevada Open Meeting Law, with posted agendas and minutes

🚨 The Dangerous Changes for the Public

1. Lack of public notice for development
   Without formal meetings or published agendas, many residents don’t know about rezonings or large-scale projects until it’s too late to weigh in meaningfully.

2. Loss of transparency and open meeting protections
   The NAB meetings adhered to Nevada's Open Meeting Law — agendas were posted, minutes were kept, and participation was formalized. Without that structure, there’s no record of what’s said or decided.

3. Greater disruption at City Council meetings
   Cutting early forums doesn’t silence residents — it shifts their frustration to Council chambers. Without early engagement, meetings will be overrun with misinformation and confusion from residents who feel blindsided.

4. Equity and accessibility
   No NAB puts the burden on working families and those who can’t attend long daytime meetings in person. She urged the city to prioritize virtual access and better notice systems to reach a broader cross-section of Reno’s population.

“Between now and whenever this is studied and a new system is rolled out, there needs to be a process in place,” she said, “especially for development projects.”

💥 Cold Springs Example Underscores the Problem

During the same meeting, multiple residents from Cold Springs voiced opposition to the Heinz Ranch industrial project — and echoed Hill’s complaints.

They reported no letters, no meetings, and a barely visible zoning sign tucked near a highway off-ramp.

The consistent theme is that communities are being left out of decisions that affect them.

🗳️ What Lisa Hill Asked For That We Need

1. Restore meaningful neighborhood-level input.

2. Ensure all development proposals are subject to early public comment.

3. Require public agendas and minutes for transparency.

4. Make meetings accessible via Zoom and after work hours.

While Council didn’t respond to her comments during the meeting, Hill’s concerns are not new, and they’re unlikely to fade as Reno continues to grow. Whether the Council will take action on these suggestions remains to be seen. Still, as more developments advance across the city, Hill’s warning may resonate with more residents who suddenly find out about new buildings, new roads, or new zoning — only after it’s already been decided.

📣 Final Word

As developers expand their footprint across the city — and residents discover projects only after ground is broken — Lisa Hill’s question looms large:

“Are Reno’s neighborhoods being heard, or just managed?”

📬 Stay Informed

If you care about transparent government, community input, and smart growth, subscribe to my newsletter, MikesRenoReport. The more residents stay informed, the harder it is to be ignored.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

City Council Backs Developer for Lakeridge Tennis Club Expansion

Residents Left with Traffic Congestion and Safety Issues

In a display of catering to big-money developers over local residents, four Reno City Councilmembers—Devon Reese, Kathleen Taylor, Miguel Martinez, and Brandi Anderson—voted to approve the construction of two five-story buildings at the former Lakeridge Tennis Club site, deep in a residential neighborhood of two-story homes.

The most recent approval for the Lakeridge Tennis Club redevelopment occurred on April 23, 2025, when the Reno City Council voted 4–3 to deny residents' appeals, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's earlier approval of the project.

This decision allows the development of a 273-unit multi-level housing project at the former Lakeridge Tennis Club site, located at the intersection of Plumas Street and South McCarran Boulevard. The project has faced criticism from local residents concerned about public safety, traffic congestion, and evacuation challenges in case of emergencies.

The Planning Commission initially approved the project on January 22, 2025. However, the City Council issued a 90-day pause to address community concerns before making the final decision in April.

(Note: This is about Lakeridge Tennis Club. There is also a citizens’ initiative for Lakeridge Golf Club.)

A Decade in the Making, Led by Lobbyists and Law Firms

The saga dates back to 2018, with a pivotal meeting in July 2019 at Rancharrah, where over 200 stakeholders gathered to hear about a potential zoning change. Despite promises to retain community amenities like tennis courts and pools, those features vanished. The original developer, Lyon Living, razed the facilities. By 2024, they had partnered with Thompson Thrift, leading to the April 23, 2025, vote that solidified the project’s path forward.

In the background, Jessica Sferrazza, a former City Councilmember and once-mayoral hopeful, emerged as a key lobbyist. Assisted by Mayor Hillary Schieve, Sferrazza teamed up with land-use attorney Garrett Gordon, operating under attorney-client privilege and wielding influence in Reno’s development decisions.

(Note: Jessica also works for Jacobs Entertainment in support of their Neon Line District and was the campaign manager for Mayor Schieve.)

Follow the Money: $88,096 in Campaign Contributions

Records reveal that Lewis Roca and the engineering firm Wood Rodgers contributed a combined $88,096 to local campaigns tied to the Lakeridge project:

• Mayor Schieve: $17,096

• Devon Reese: $18,500

• Kathleen Taylor: $10,500

• Brandi Anderson: $5,000

• Miguel Martinez: $4,500

• Nicole Cannizzaro (Reese’s law partner Rings’s wife): $31,500

• Alex Velto (Reese’s other law partner): $1,000

Though not illegal, these donations raise serious ethical questions. None of the recipients has disclosed these contributions publicly, and no councilmember is currently required to recuse themselves from votes involving major donors. Let’s see how they report the spending.

Traffic Fiction vs. Lived Reality

At the heart of resident outrage is the McCarran–Lakeside corridor, which already receives an “F” grade for traffic congestion. Rush hour now starts as early as 3:00 p.m. Despite this, the developer claimed—without irony—that traffic would improve after adding 274 apartment units and over 600 vehicles parked in the area.

A traffic study conducted in 2024 by Headway Transportation projected an additional 1,800 vehicle trips per day through the nearby intersection, concluding that the impact would be "negligible" and would not present any significant issues. However, this conclusion is not accurate.

Some council members celebrated voicemail comments parroting this fantasy narrative as evidence that residents were “excited” for the project. The voicemails, according to observers, appeared to be scripted or paid-for testimonials—a practice that further undermines public trust.

(Note: In February 2025, Mayor Schieve called McCarren Blvd dangerous and said that the city of Reno should take it over, ignoring that RTC and NDOT already did a study and are addressing the issues, while Reno lacks the expertise and budget.)

Fire Safety Ignored, Again

During the Pinehaven Fire, residents near the Lakeridge site waited over an hour to evacuate across McCarran. With no evacuation plan, no road improvements, and no serious mitigation measures in place, the council's vote risks repeating history with even deadlier consequences.

The new development, situated in the urban-wildland interface, puts thousands of residents at risk should another wildfire strike. Individuals with respiratory conditions will be particularly vulnerable if evacuation routes become gridlocked.

What Happened to "Conserving Neighborhoods"?

Nevada law and Reno’s own Master Plan require that new developments “conserve and enhance existing neighborhoods.” That language was completely ignored. Instead, “infill” has become the buzzword that City Hall uses to justify virtually any high-density project, no matter the cost to quality of life or public safety.

Bottom Line: Who Does City Hall Represent?

The former Lakeridge Tennis Club served 100–150 daily guests before shutting down in March 2020. Now, with zero public amenities and zero public input, it will become a traffic-choked apartment site — a monument to backroom deals, outside lobbying, and developer dollars.

Reno’s elected officials love to tout their commitment to “smart growth” and “public input,” but this case makes one thing painfully clear: campaign donors come first, and the public comes last. Residents are watching. And they’ll remember in 2026.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

The Lakeridge Golf Course is in Danger from Development

Developers want to build a hotel and hundreds of homes on open space

The Reno City Council & Developers are Moving to Re-Zone the Lakeridge Golf Course. Many are concerned about the rapid pace of overdevelopment and the unwillingness of our city leaders to preserve any remaining open spaces that are vital to the character, health, and sustainability of our community.

Residents are tired of the overdevelopment, loss of natural habitat, increased traffic congestion, strain on infrastructure, and a diminishing sense of connection to any happy human spaces. The other day over 200 residents attended a protest at Bartley Park.

Once these spaces are lost, they are gone forever. Preserving what few open spaces remain would be a wise investment in our city's future. We urge City Council members to consider a development process to ensure that growth does not come at the cost of livability.

The headlines paint a picture: a new hotel and spa is proposed at the former Lakeridge driving range, promising luxury amenities and minimal disruption. But dig deeper, and you'll find a very different story—one that could transform 155 acres of open space into dense, mixed-use development.

Here’s what you need to know:

A Golf Course in Jeopardy

The Lakeridge Golf Course isn’t just a collection of fairways. It's the heart of a 900-acre master-planned community, surrounded by neighborhoods that were built with the expectation of open space and unobstructed views.

Duncan Golf Management has submitted Application LDC25-00061 to rezone all 155 acres of the Lakeridge Golf Course—not just the 12 acres of the former driving range—to a Special Planning District (SPD).

This zoning change would allow far more than a hotel. It could pave the way for:

• High-density residential housing

• Retail centers

• Office complexes

• And more—subject to future plan updates and City Council approval

All without guaranteeing that the golf course, as it exists today, will remain intact.

Why This Matters

Duncan Golf says:

“The golf course will not undergo significant changes.”

But if that’s true, why include all four parcels in the rezoning application?

Unlike standard zoning, SPD zoning:

• Stays with the land, even if sold

• Allows sweeping changes based on a "handbook" that can be updated later

• Sidesteps traditional land-use planning oversight

It’s effectively a blank slate—and once it's approved, there’s no going back.

A Familiar Pattern: The Tennis Club Bait and Switch

This isn’t the first time a developer made big promises, only to reverse course.

In 2019, Reno Land promised to preserve parts of the Lakeridge Tennis Club while seeking rezoning. But after the zoning was approved, they demolished the club and sold the land to Lyon Living, who now plan to build four 5-story apartment buildings next to single-family homes.

Residents were misled. And it could happen again.

Important History

In 2006, the Reno City Council proactively zoned the Lakeridge Golf Course as Parks, Greenways, and Open Space (PGOS) to prevent precisely this kind of intensive development.

From the 2005 staff report:

“Infrastructure in the immediate area such as storm water facilities and the traffic network were not planned for this intensity of development.”

The rezoning was done in good faith to preserve open space and protect neighborhoods. Why reverse it now?

What You Can Do

Oppose Application LDC25-00061

The Planning Commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 16th. It may be your only chance to stop this development. Since planning commission decisions are not binding on the City Council you’ll want to contact them too.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Attend the Planning Commission hearing and provide public comment.

2. Contact the Planning Commissioners and City Council Members – ask them to vote NO.

3. Visit https://savelakeridge.com/what-you-can-do to get their email addresses.

4. Share this issue with your neighbors and Duncan Golf members.

5. Forward this email newletters to your friends.

6. Join the Facebook for Save Lakeridge, https://www.facebook.com/groups/749825356004765

This Is About More Than a Golf Course

Lakeridge represents more than just real estate. It’s a commitment to open space, responsible planning, and community values. If we allow this rezoning to pass quietly, we risk setting a precedent that undermines every neighborhood in Reno.

Let’s not let that happen again.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

GSR: Reno’s $61 Million Tax Giveaway

Deal to Billionaire Developer Hurts Taxpayers and the City’s Future

The Reno City Council has approved a $61 million Tax Increment Financing (TIF) deal for the Grand Sierra Resort (GSR) expansion—a deal that hands an out-of-town billionaire investor millions in future tax revenue while burdening Reno’s taxpayers and city services.

90% of the future property taxes generated by this development will be funneled back to GSR under the TIF agreement—money that should go to funding city services and infrastructure maintenance.

Since the GSR is willing and able to pay the up-front construction costs without TIF it seems that the GSR intends to use TIF for ongoing operational costs. This is not an appropriate use of TIF under Nevada law.

What the City Gets:

• $6.8 million over 10 years. That’s less than $700,000 per year—a drop in the bucket for a city with mounting infrastructure needs.

• $3.4 million to a youth sports fund—again, a one-time sum dwarfed by the $61 million tax giveaway.

• Land for a fire station valued at $4–5 million—but the city already has a station there and was paying below-market rent. The so-called “savings” of $30,000 per year is negligible.

The Big Problem: Lost Revenue, Higher Burdens

Supporters of the project claim that this tax money wouldn’t exist without the project, but this ignores the purpose of property tax: to fund public services. The GSR expansion will increase strain on roads, fire protection, and other city services—without paying its share. This forces Reno to make up the lost revenue elsewhere, likely through tax hikes or service cuts.

Reno already faces a $26 million budget deficit, and there are active county proposals to raise property taxes. On top of that, the city is carrying nearly $1 billion in debt from past TIF-funded projects like the Railroad Trench, Cabela’s, and city-owned venues such as the Reno Events Center, The Reno Ballroom and National Bowling Stadium—none of which delivered the promised economic revitalization.

Low-Wage Jobs, Temporary Boosts

Proponents of the GSR expansion tout temporary construction jobs and future tourism. But most permanent jobs at casinos and arenas are low-wage. And GSR’s expansion might not bring new visitors to Reno—it could shift them from downtown. That means less revenue for city-owned venues that are already struggling.

The Myth of the $2.4 Billion Impact

Supporters claim this will generate a $2.4 billion economic impact—but these types of projections are speculative and historically overblown. TIF projects in Reno (and across the U.S.) have a poor track record of delivering on their promises. Look no further than the underused Bowling Stadium, struggling Event Center, and Ballroom or the unfulfilled promises of the STAR bonds at Cabela’s and the railroad Trench.

What Happens If We Say No?

The idea that doing nothing means getting “nothing” is disingenuous. GSR would still likely build—the economic pressure and property value incentives are already there. And if they don’t? Reno saves itself from another tax siphon and retains control over its revenue. The real missed opportunity is continuing to subsidize billionaires while asking taxpayers to make up the shortfall.

Lack of Transparency and Public Input

What’s worse, the city has sidelined citizen advisory boards and made no real effort to engage the public. City Council members, RDA officials and people in prominent positions post articles and conduct interviews touting the GSR deal.

But questions are left unanswered. Will Reno residents use the expanded facilities? Is moving the ball team from UNR to the GSR a good idea? Can Reno meet its financial obligations? How have similar past deals performed?

Reno Needs to Reevaluate Its Actions and Finances

TIF is for truly blighted areas that need a jump start. But GSR doesn’t fit that definition. This deal isn’t revitalization—it’s corporate welfare.

The GSR TIF deal isn’t just bad policy—it’s a betrayal of public trust. Reno’s taxpayers deserve transparency, fiscal responsibility, and leadership that prioritizes the public good over developer giveaways.

Reno needs to:

• Restore citizen advisory boards and act on their input

• Audit and publish financials on city-owned venues

• Invest property tax revenues into public infrastructure

• Stop issuing tax breaks that weaken the city’s long-term fiscal health

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

Stonegate at Heinz Ranch Switches to Industrial

Stonegate public amenities and housing are canceled and industrial is approved

On May 21, 2025, the Reno City Council approved a proposal by Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC to pivot the development towards industrial use, specifically large-scale warehouse facilities. The revised plan reduces the number of residential units to 1,350 and introduces approximately 11.75 million square feet of industrial space—a twelvefold increase from the original design.

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC is a real estate development firm based in Reno, Nevada, and owns the StoneGate project in Cold Springs, originally envisioned as a 5,000-home master-planned community, which has undergone a significant transformation.

This decision followed a prior rejection by the Reno Planning Commission, which expressed concerns about the compatibility of industrial uses with surrounding areas.

Despite this, the City Council approved the change in a 4–3 vote, with Councilmembers Miguel Martinez, Kathleen Taylor, Devon Reese, and Brandi Anderson voting in favor, and Councilmembers Meghan Ebert, Naomi Duerr, and Mayor Hillary Schieve opposing. Schieve is trying to look anti-developer.

It’s interesting that Reese’s law partner Velto is a planning commission member.

Proponents of the shift argue that the industrial focus will attract manufacturing jobs, (the jobs are usually low paying) reduce traffic volumes, and lower water usage compared to the original residential plan. However, critics, including the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, have raised concerns about potential environmental risks and the loss of land. It’s a beautiful piece of ranch land that can’t be replaced.

Campaign Contributions

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC, of Lathrop, CA, has made political contributions to Councilman Devon Reese's campaign. According to the Nevada Secretary of State's Contributions & Expenses Annual Filing, they contributed $5,000 on September 6, 2023, and $2,500 on December 23, 2024, to Reese.

StoneGate at Heinz Ranch

StoneGate Master Planned Community

StoneGate was to be a comprehensive development located in the Cold Springs area, encompassing approximately 1,700 acres. The project was designed to include 5,000 residential units, comprising single-family homes, multi-family residences, and affordable housing options. The community plan also integrated commercial spaces, schools, recreational facilities, and essential infrastructure to support a self-sustaining neighborhood.

The development of StoneGate is managed by Newlands Development Company (NDC), with key figures Donald A. Pattalock and Michael Barnes.

Community Contributions and Commitments

Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC, previously committed to contributing to community amenities and pledged $1.5 million in donations to support recreational and community facilities in the North Valleys, the Moana Aquatics facility, and other local programs. The development plan had included the construction of up to 200 affordable housing units in the earlier phases of the project, demonstrating a commitment to addressing diverse housing needs in the area.

Bond Issue

In June 2021, the Reno City Council authorized the issuance of approximately $36.7 million in municipal bonds to support infrastructure improvements for the StoneGate development. This arrangement aimed to provide the developer with access to the city's lower interest rates, facilitating the financing of infrastructure with the intention of passing savings on to future homeowners. However, despite this authorization, the bonds were ultimately not issued. In a subsequent ordinance, the City Council repealed the earlier authorization, noting that the bonds had never been issued at the request of Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC.

The Connections

Giornico Holdings & Advisory, Newlands Development Company (NDC), and Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC are interconnected entities involved in the development of the StoneGate Master Planned Community.

• Giornico Holdings & Advisory: Parent company providing strategic oversight.

• Newlands Development Company (NDC): Operates under Giornico Holdings; manages development projects.

• Heinz Ranch Land Company, LLC: Developer of the StoneGate project; managed by NDC.

Conclusion

It appears that the developer sees a greater profit in building industrial facilities instead of residential ones. They declined the bond money and were then released from commitments to build public amenities. The recommendations of the Planning Commission do not bind the City Council, and it can appoint commission members whom it approves of. There is a bill before the Nevada Assembly that will give council members the authority to remove commission members. The City Council also votes against the interests of the people, as many opposed the change to industrial. This demonstrates that Reno needs independent commissioners whose findings are binding on the city council, and we need to elect council members who are not beholden to developers. We also need a way to ensure that they listen to and follow the will of the voters.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com

The Neon Line: Promises Unfulfilled

A Buying Spree in West Reno

Jacobs Entertainment (JEI) is leading Reno into a real estate and financial disaster. JEI has not delivered on its promises, and it wants the City of Reno to help finance its ill-conceived vision of a “Neon Line” west of downtown.

JEI began acquiring properties in Reno, west of downtown, in 2015, with the purchase of the Gold Dust West. In 2017, they resumed buying, acquiring the Sands Regency hotel and casino for $26 million and the Gold and Silver Inn, along with up to 100 other properties, for an estimated total of $100 million.

JEI enticed the Reno City Council with promises of redevelopment and obtained permits to demolish up to 45 properties, including 18 weekly rental motels, displacing hundreds of low-income residents.

JEI has built only one new property, the 245 Arlington Apartment, and renovated just one, The Renova Apartments. There has been no development progress across the remaining lots. The company has attempted to attract joint venture partners or to sell these properties, but there has been no progress since 2017.

JEI has focused on renovating the Sands Regency into the J Resort, including building the Glow Plaza, and is currently building an outdoor festival venue at 2nd and Arlington, and appears to be betting on the festival venue to boost them financially.

(Note: This article was first published 2/20/2025. An update will be posted soon.)

A Neglected Casino Property

The Sands Regency, an 800-room casino hotel, has changed hands multiple times since its expansion in 1988. It was sold to Herbst in 2006, to Truckee Gaming in 2013, and to JEI in 2017. It grew into disrepair.

JEI has reportedly taken on $500 million in debt at an interest rate of 6.75% to finance the renovation of the Sands Regency into the J Resort. This amounts to an annual interest payment of $33.75 million.

Renovations began in 2019, but the property now faces a mismatch in customer demographics. Historically, it catered to a blue-collar crowd, but the renovation has driven up prices, alienating its traditional customer base but not attracting many new customers.

Reviews on social media indicate widespread dissatisfaction with the price increases, and they call out that it’s not a resort like other large casino properties in Reno.

Uncertain Viability of the J Resort

JEI is a private company that does not publish its accounting statements. Estimates and conclusions in this article are based on publicly available information, industry-standard factors, and financial ratios.

For the J Resort to achieve financial viability, it would need to generate an estimated $110 million in gross revenue, comparable to the Atlantis casino, which reported revenue of $133 million with a similar room count.

However, based on estimated operating expenses and debt service obligations, even at this revenue level, the J Resort might run at a $7 million annual loss, which would require Jacobs to distribute the debt service company-wide across of JEI’s entire casino portfolio in which case the J Resort might have a +23% operating margin.

JEI appears to be betting on achieving Atlantis-level revenue, but current conditions do not support such optimism. From the reviews and observations J Resort might be half empty. It’s hard to tell.

It appears that JEI is relying on the festival plaza at 2nd and Arlington to cover the shortfall. Still, this event space is unlikely to generate the necessary revenues, given that it will be challenging for them to host 10 or more shows with ticket sales exceeding 10,000 units. The maximum capacity is 15,000 attendees.

Jacobs would have to outdo the Golden Center in Sacramento and the Shoreline Center in Mountain View to reach their goals.

Looming Risk for Jacobs

JEI’s $500 million in bonds mature in 2029, and its ability to refinance is uncertain. Other casinos typically issue bonds with terms of 7-10 years, allowing more time to accumulate cash reserves. JEI's five-year bond term suggests refinancing risk.

The company has not developed any of the 100+ lots it acquired, meaning it cannot generate revenue from them or use them as collateral for refinancing. If the company cannot secure additional funds or attract development partners, insolvency by 2029 is possible.

Requests for Public Assistance

JEI has requested significant financial support from the City of Reno, including $20 million in tax-increment financing (TIF) which is pending, 40% (up to $20 million) of new tax revenue, $4.6 million in infrastructure improvement reimbursements, and $1.57 million in sewer fee abatement which has been granted and building permit and sewer connection fee deferrals with a 5-year payment schedule.

(Note: Recently, Jacobs revised their TIF down to $20 million, and the city of Reno extended their sewer connection deferral indefinitely.)

These requests from Jacobs place a burden on Reno’s already strained finances. Reno is facing a $25 million budget deficit in 2026. The city’s redevelopment fund has been depleted due to the underperformance of the Bowling Stadium, Event Center, and Ballroom, which were financed with approximately $100 million in tax incentive bonds in the 1990s.

Reno has already lost approximately $2.5 million in room tax revenue over the last five years due to JEI’s demolition of 18 motels. Property tax revenue has declined as demolished properties reduce taxable value; however, the exact amount is difficult to determine.

Risks for The City of Reno

Jeff Jacobs, the company’s CEO, is known for high-risk, high-debt investments. He has publicly stated that the Neon Line development will be the capstone of his career. However, his financial decisions suggest a speculative rather than strategically sustainable approach.

Despite receiving significant concessions from the Reno City Council, JEI has failed to present a concrete development timeline. Hundreds of residents were displaced, and citizen objections were ignored. Jacobs’ political connections, including campaign contributions and advisory roles, have influenced city decision-making. The city has allowed JEI to bypass sign and billboard regulations, leading to legal action from Scenic Nevada. Former city council member and Mayor Schieve’s campaign manager, Jessica Sferrazza, is an advisor to Jacobs.

(Note: The Nevada Supreme Court just ruled that Jacobs can erect the signs.)

If JEI fails with the Neon Line vision, Reno will be left with vacant lots and lost tax revenue. The city must exercise caution before approving any further financial benefits for Jacobs. Given this situation, the Reno City Council should reconsider further financial support for JEI until the company demonstrates a viable path forward with the development of its properties.

Conclusion

JEI should provide transparent development plans and execution strategies and be held to them. The Reno City Council should seek public input before granting further financial assistance. JEI must find ways to monetize its vacant lots, even if through discounted sales or joint ventures with developers. JEI should not be granted any tax incentive bond financing.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

https://mikesrenoreport.substack.com