Happy February! Here is another update on issues related to Ward 1.
Steamboat Ditch - A lot of questions are still being asked about the proposal for a $25M federal grant to channelize the ditch and other measures. Almost universally, people have expressed that the proposal is an overengineered approach to addressing legitimate overtopping, breach and seepage concerns. Most public input focused on what the project would do to the natural and aesthetic qualities of the venerable water diversion that courses through the foothill neighborhoods. I keep envisioning movie footage of the concrete Los Angeles River channel that is representative of dystopian urban landscape and scratch my head.
The good news is that because of the misstep to minimally (if even at all), give the impacted public an opportunity to provide input on the project concept, the feds are likely to extensively vet the project. I’ve been advocating a restart of the process with both the City and TMWA (as ditch rights holders) being active participants in any funding request. That discussion will be occurring soon at the Council meeting and I’ve also asked for the TMWA Board to discuss it as well.
Pinehaven Fire - The Reno Fire Department released a report and a video determining probable cause was NV Energy power lines. You can those items and the press event that I participated by clicking the below links:
You can watch the news conference here.
This is more or less the same determination as the 2011 Caughlin Fire. For those who experienced property loss, I understand that perhaps your insurer and NV Energy are opaquely working toward settlement.
As a private investment owned utility, NV Energy is regulated by the state’s Public Utility Commission and also enjoys a franchise privilege from the City of Reno. The nature of both state and local regulation of this infrastructure needs to evolve as the power grid poses risk factors in our changing climatic conditions. The PG&E bankruptcy in California following the Camp Fire demonstrates the complexity of this issue on a calamitous scale.
From a City perspective, I am touring the power lines easements with the Fire Department next week. I have asked staff for detailed property ownership maps to help me understand the grid infrastructure in this vicinity. I am also encouraged that Reno Fire Department will soon begin some brush remediation (and hopefully erosion control measures) in City owned canyon lands and am also asking City Manager Thornley to deploy a communications plan that informs everyone – individual property owners, Home Owner’s Associations and other public entities – of their legal brush clearance obligations and best practices for managing vegetation.
A Little Bit about Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs) and Easements - I try to read a book about the urban history of a different city each year. Last year was an enjoyable one about decades of postwar booster efforts to halt Cleveland’s decline. This year I am reading (on occasion of its 20th year publication anniversary), Mike Davis’ City of Quartz about Los Angeles. He relates a history of HOAs and makes a notable observation that HOAs are one of the least studied areas of the urban planning field. I agree! I remember HOAs briefly being touched upon in my land use law class at planning school, but with 25 years of work experience in this arena, I don’t think a week has gone by where an HOA issue was not at hand.
When touching upon this subject, it is always important to say a big thank you to all who serve on our Ward 1 HOA boards! I know that it is often thankless work and also that the focus is parallel to that which we do at a city (and often substitutes for services or infrastructure that a city provides) and is serious business. It is perhaps a post for another time that could discuss the multifaceted roles of HOAs, the default manner in which they are formed and take on responsibilities, and pondering public polices about options for new residential development outside of HOAs.
All of this is introduction to an issue going up in Juniper Ridge that has also come up in other settings that I thought some might find informative. Evidently, a new property owner is not crazy about a walkway that runs along their property side yard that serves as long time access to the ditch and wanted to erect a fence to block that access. For many HOAs, the HOA has some construction permitting authority that must occur before or in conjunction with that of the City. In this instance, the HOA evidently gave the greenlight to the fence and now several folks who use the access object.
Now, the City is in the process of reviewing the original Juniper Ridge subdivision documents to understand the nature of the easement. I’ve found that over the years, some easements are not as clear as could be about the public’s right to travel on these by foot. Newer subdivisions like Juniper Ridge, usually have more detailed easement descriptions that include pedestrian. With an HOA involved as in this instance, the City is in the position of reviewing both the property owner’s right to block the easement and the HOA’s approval authority. It gets involved, but I am hopeful that it will be confirmed that the public has the continued right to walk this path.
A best approach for all in instances as this, is pretty commonsense. If you buy an existing property and it is adjacent to a walkway, chances are someone is using it and will object to you blocking it off. Likewise, if you are someone who likes to walk on trails, or private streets in neighborhoods where you don’t reside it is probably a right you enjoy, but don’t push it.
Plumas Park - Who saw it coming that during the pandemic, a lot of people decided to adopt dogs and now there is a heightened demand for dog parks? Well, that and other trends like infill development and household demographics is bearing down on old southwest’s Plumas Park. For a history of Plumas Park, here is an informative link from our friends at the Truckee Meadows Parks Foundation: https://www.tmparksfoundation.org/plumas-park
Unfortunately, Plumas Park is overprogrammed. Several years before I came on the Council, Our Lady of the Snows school asked the City Council to give them use privileges of the park. This was agreement was extended in 2017 over my objections and is in place until 2023. I did not feel that it was best public policy to provide the school a privilege to use the park beyond that of any other neighbor but I was outvoted. Many neighbors also voiced objections that Snows’ request was prompted by a school expansion plan that involved building over the school’s own playground. In addition to the Snows agreement, the City has a relationship with Ren Youth Sports Association that allows them field to use Plumas Park for soccer league games.
Both Snow and the league (and other casual users like frisbee throwers) have expressed concern that the use of Plumas Park as an informal dog park is in conflict with their use of the park. I validate this view, because I understand from park managers that it is not possible to have dog parks utilize the same lands as parks without regular poop pick up services. There are other management issues like fencing and turf rotation to consider.
When I and others raised this concern to our Parks Director she more or less echoed what I thought. Her response is excerpted below.
Perhaps my next post about park and recreation demand will be (as it must) situated in an overall discussion about how city services are funded. Stay tuned and thanks for reading.
Plumas Park
Not enough space to accommodate 1 acre for dog park without conflicting with other user groups with agreements in place: Our Lady of Snows and RYSA.
Funding does not currently exist for purchase and installation; fencing was removed when Our Lady of Snows renovated the playground as one of the conditions in the agreement.
This park is frequently used by general park users, as well as park has agreements with Our Lady of Snows (playground and grass use) and RYSA (flat field use); City youth day camp programs are at Plumas Gym during WCSD breaks and use the playground and grass areas
Not enough space to accommodate 1 acre for dog park without conflicting with other user groups with agreements in place.
Irrigation system at Plumas Park is one of our outdated systems, operating on lower than adequate pressure so moving or adding sprinklers to water separate areas would not be feasible.
Plumas Park is surrounded by residences on 3 sides, church/private school on 4th side.
We are aware of the desires for more off-leash areas. We also face a greater shortage in flat field areas, so we must balance that. A recent level of service survey conducted by the Trust for Public Lands shows that Reno is at 1.2 per capita vs 3.3 for flat fields and 1.2 per capita vs 1.6 for off-leash dog areas.
There are 7 designated off-leash areas in Washoe County:
Virginia Lake Park Dog Park | 1980 Lakeside Drive
1.0 mi from Plumas Park
Whitaker Park Dog Park | 550 University Terrace
1.9 mi from Plumas Park
Rancho San Rafael Park | 1595 North Sierra Street
2.5 mi from Plumas Park
Sparks Marina Park Dog Park | 300 Howard Drive
6.5 mi from Plumas Park
Wedekind Regional Park | 11 Disc Drive
8.7 mi from Plumas Park
Link Piazzo Dog Park at Hidden Valley Regional Park | 4740 Parkway Drive
8.0 mi from Plumas Park
Somersett West Park | 2110 Hawk Meadow Trail
12.0 mi from Plumas Park
Cyan Park will have an off-leash area as well that is anticipated to open in April 2021.
Jenny Brekhus is the Ward 1 Reno, NV, City Council Member. When opinions and views expressed, without other attribution, they are those of Jenny Brekhus and do not reflect official views or positions of the City of Reno or the Reno City Council unless otherwise noted. This publication and any response it generates communicated through any channel, may be subject to disclosure under Nevada Public Records Act if it substantively refers to City of Reno business.