Community Concerns Rise Over Relationships Between Developers and City Council

A Former Sports Club Thought to Be Saved, Now Gone

The property where the Lakeridge Tennis Club formerly stood, on the corner of Plumas and McCarran Blvd., has become both a wasteland and a trigger point for rising concerns about the relationship between developers and members of the Reno City Council. Campaign donation disclosure forms show developers involved in controversial projects with unexpected twists and turns, including Lakeridge, have given incumbent city council members, seeking to keep their seats, thousands and thousands of dollars in election cycle money.

The Daybreak project is a well publicized case. Less so is the dooming of the Lakeridge Tennis Club, which was sold last year to Reno Land to be redeveloped with a Newport Beach, California-based company called Lyon Living. Together, according to campaign disclosure forms, the two entities have given $15,000 in campaign contributions to Devon Reese, Oscar Delgado and Neoma Jardon, all incumbents trying to keep their City Council seats.

Initially, Reno Land’s purchase of the property seemed to be a saving grace of sorts, though, for those wanting to save the club. Original proposals brought forward by Reno Land to the surrounding community and Lakeridge club members indicated that the struggling club would be revitalized. 

“[The Lakeridge community] was really curious to know what Reno Land had in mind when they made this proposal at the public meeting, so there were about 200 plus people at the meeting and they shared their vision for what the tennis club could be moving forward,” said Sharon Weiss, the head coach of the Lakeridge swim team for the past 30 years.

“[Reno Land’s vision] was to develop half of the property with some infill, meaning they would bring in some 150 apartments on the western portion of the property. Then on the other half, they would revitalize the club knowing that it was an iconic property and had clubs for the community. So they came in like they were saviors [of the property],” Weiss said of initial hopes.

A Zoning Amendment Easily Brought Forward

In order to bring in apartment units to a portion of the Lakeridge property, a zoning amendment from the city council was required. Since Lakeridge was originally founded as a planned community, a specific zoning map was implemented. Therefore, Reno Land needed to change the Lakeridge Tennis Club zoning status from a specific plan district (SPD) to community commercial (CC). 

“Since the only way that [Reno Land] could move forward with this revitalization idea was to change the zoning, [the community] believed and supported them and almost no one went to the city council meeting to express concerns about them changing the zoning,” Weiss said. “So they appeared like it was all good and the plan was in the works.”

At the city council meeting on September 23, 2019, Reno Land’s request for a zoning amendment to the property was passed unanimously by the Reno City Council. Outside of concerns expressed by Councilwoman Naomi Duerr, whose ward includes the Lakeridge property, councilwoman Jenny Brekhus was the only other member of city council to raise questions in the meeting regarding Reno Land’s proposal for the property.

The discussion and voting for the zone change in question begins at 1:28:00 in video above.

Was a Bait and Switch Maneuver Used?

“Of course City Council members will say they are not biased, but a review of the City Council Meeting about changing the zoning for Lakeridge Tennis Club shows a very different possibility,” Weiss wrote in an email correspondence with Our Town Reno. “How is it that an iconic property with the history of Lakeridge Tennis Club is presented for a zoning change to the City Council, yet only a single member other than Naomi Duerr has any question? How is it that there is very little discussion on the motion to change the zoning for the whole property, even though the developer is suggesting that they only want to develop a portion of it (while maintaining the rest)? It wasn't until I went back and watched the meeting that it seemed like minds were made up... It's hard to trust that there is a level playing field,” she concluded.

After the zoning amendment was approved, Weiss says Reno Land’s interactions with community and club members suddenly stopped. So Weiss, whose nonprofit, the Lakeridge Swim Club, was dependent on the two pools that were part of the Lakeridge Tennis Club property, reached out to Reno Land because she had a particularly vested business interest in Reno Land’s proposed revitalization. 

In April 2020, just weeks before Reno Land’s purchase of the property became official on June 1st, word went around the community that Reno Land had changed their proposal for the property entirely. 

“I never heard from them after I wrote to them and sent them my bio and an explanation of my program and what we do,” Weiss said. “I called their offices and I never heard back. So I thought it would be business as usual this Spring, but then they came forward with the site plan for 350 apartments for active adults 55 and over, with an explanation for their rationale was that as a result of COVID, this club that's already in trouble will inevitably close and [the property] should be for housing.”

Weiss says she and other members of the community she’s spoken to believe Reno Land used a ‘bait-and-switch’ tactic in order to gain community support, before changing plans. Tennis players in the community have been exchanging emails and conversations at still existing tennis courts, expressing similar concerns.

“They basically baited the community, they baited the planning commission, they baited everybody because on their application for the zoning change, every question all has to do with revitalizing the club,” Weiss said. “Their whole initial application for the zoning change was all about revitalizing the club, so there wouldn’t be any changes or any problems with traffic and everything's going to be great. [The property] is going to be in existing use and it's not that big of a deal because all we're doing with changing the zoning is changing colors on a map.”

“Members were actually still paying dues late into April, when [Reno Land] put their site plan out and they were talking about how, ‘As a result of COVID, the club is no longer financially viable,’ but the billing cycle for the club wasn’t complete so there's no way they can make a claim like that,” Weiss said. “My [swim] team had paid 100% of our dues for March. So members of the club were still paying and still happy to pay to keep the club afloat while it was closed due to COVID. So that's actually not a true statement for them to make that the club is dying.”

Appealing the New Plan which is Then Suddenly Dropped Before the Election

Once the new site plan was revealed, several community members got together as an appellate group to appeal the new plan. 

“We all got together and started looking at the proposal on their original application. We looked at all the planning commission and city council meetings and just started taking each issue one at a time,” Weiss said. “We had a hearing in June with a neutral hearing examiner who heard our case via Zoom. We went one at a time and went piece by piece to address the issues in the case and the hearing officer ended up ruling in our favor in July.”

Reno Land consequently appealed the ruling, as did Weiss’s appellate group simply, she says, to remain a part of the conversation. At that point in the process, the appeal was set to return to city council for a ruling. To prepare for the city council ruling, Weiss and her group assembled further findings to strengthen their case. But just hours before the hearing, Reno Land withdrew their appeal.

“Just a few hours before we were supposed to present our case to the city council, the developer withdrew their plan and didn't really offer any explanation,” Weiss said. “They simply said, ‘We're withdrawing our application for the 350 units, and we will be back in the next couple months with a new plan.’ So we still have all of our findings and what's tricky about this is that there's important information for the city and there's a lot of learning that needs to happen with this case because the city made a lot of allowances for the developer already.”

To notify of plans suddenly changing, Garret Gordon, a lawyer representing Reno Land Inc., released a statement to acting City of Reno community development coordinator Angela Fuss, which read: “We are withdrawing the Application prior to final action by the Reno City Council, but fully intend to re-submit an updated Application in the coming months. We look forward to continuing working with you and appreciate all of the time and effort you and your staff spent to process the application.” The statement and withdrawal came ahead of the November 2020 election, in which several city council incumbents are facing re-election. Devon Reese, who was appointed to the at-large seat in 2019, is seeking to keep his seat as well. Reese and two other re-election candidates have each received $5,000 from Reno Land and $10,000 from Lyon Management.

A Political Rival’s Take Amid a Quick Tear Down

Eddie Lorton, a local businessman who is running for the at-large City Council seat against incumbent Devon Reese, also believes the city of Reno has been too accommodating to developers. 

“I guarantee since [city council] took all the heat and it's an election cycle, that the developer was called and told to stand down for now because there was an outcry in the community,” Lorton alleged. This could not be independently confirmed.

Requests for comment submitted to Reno Land, Lyon Living and the election campaign for Devon Reese for this story went unanswered. Campaign contribution reports for Reese show he received $5,000 from Reno Land on June 1st. They also show Reno Land gave $5,000 to Oscar Delgado’s campaign effort on June 1 for his run for Ward 3, and $5,000 to Neoma Jardon’s coffers on June 16th for her re-election run for Ward 5.

The three have also received $10,000 in campaign contributions from the Lyon Management Group, which according to its website includes Lyon Living.

Councilwoman Brekhus responded to our query for a comment on what might have happened with this emailed information: “As this was an appeal, the City Council sits quasi-judicial, like a judge would,” she wrote. “In those instances, contact with parties related to the issue is not appropriate.  All information sharing is required to be in the public meeting under due process considerations.  For this reason, I refrain from contact when matters like this involving are pending.  So I did not have any contact with Reno Land or their paid team during this period.”

According to Weiss, Reno Land submitted a demolition permit to the city the same day their site plan review was approved on May 15th. Less than two weeks later, she said, despite existing appeals against the site plan, the city issued Reno Land their demolition permit to start tearing down the standing building, tennis courts and the swimming pools on the property. Messages to Reno Land and Lyon Living to get confirmation of this timeline went unanswered.

“They pulled a fast one especially since [the community] didn't even notice the property was being demolished until it was too late,” Lorton said. “Once [developers] get their approval, they do the bait and switch and will go back to the table 50 times and it's never for the city's advantage. It's always at [the city’s] detriment, so I don't know why [the city council] keeps renegotiating these things.”

“Many citizens believe that it was not appropriate for the city to issue a demolition permit until the appeal process was completed, so it's really disappointing to see that the city had chosen to do that,” Weiss said. “It doesn't seem right that if a case is in appeal that any permit, whether it's demolition or building, be given until the appeals process is over.”

The property is now sitting idle and destroyed until a new plan is announced.

The Case of Daybreak Reno and Views of Another Challenger

Lorton also cites Daybreak Reno, a developer owned by Newport Pacific Land Company, which have also both made significant campaign contributions to same members on the Reno City Council. The controversial Daybreak project would bring nearly 4,000 housing units to an undeveloped plot of land in a floodplain in Southeast Reno. According to campaign contribution documents, Newport Pacific made maximum campaign donations of $10,000 to Oscar Delgado and Neoma Jardon. In the case of Reese, according to a News 4 media report, it indicates he’s received $24,500 from three different entities linked to the project.

The three Council members who received donations from Daybreak-involved developers, Reese, Delgado and Jardon, voted to approve the Daybreak project in September 2019. Previously in November 2018, Delgado and Jardon, who were at that point already elected members of the Reno City Council (Reese was appointed to fill the vacant at-large seat in 2019), initially voted against it. That vote prompted the Daybreak developer Newport Pacific Land to sue the city.

Delgado and Reese released statements to media indicating the campaign contributions were not a conflict of interest and that the money did not influence their votes.

“Developer money is an outsize influence on city council — impacting city priorities, council agendas, and greatly distorting electoral politics and public trust,” Rudy Leon wrote to Our Town Reno via Facebook Messenger, summarizing how she views the situation. Leon is running against Delgado for the Ward 3 seat.

“The city should be putting as much attention to social issues (such as housing precarity, homelessness, mental health, public health epidemics, and quality of life) as developers. But what incentive is there for incumbents to pay attention to issues which lack the big money developers bring to campaigns? Individual resident donors really can’t compete,” Leon wrote.

Delgado, Jardon and other City Council members, besides Brekhus, did not respond to emails to give us statements on the record about these donations and the controversial development projects. Requests for comments by Daybreak Reno and Newport Pacific Land Company for this article also went unanswered.

In the case of Lakeridge, Lorton says he wants the developer and city council to go forward with the original plan. “Reno Land did buy the property and their original plan was approved, which got through the right way,” Lorton said. “I would have never wanted the tennis courts torn down, and let alone we hardly have any pools in this area and quality of life issues matter. But now it's too late to take it back and rebuild it, but that was really unfortunate for that to happen to our community. So now though, I guess we'd have to go back and approve the original deal.”

The Need to Bring Quality of Life to Reno Residents

More generally, Lorton says he wants to see a better problem-solving approach by the city council to enhance the quality of life for Reno residents.

“If we need to get a pool, we could reach out to foundations and get one bill privately-funded because we have excellent people in our community that would more than be happy if you talk to the right folks,” Lorton said. “Quality of life issues matter like never before. [The city] doesn’t make a lot of money on tennis courts, golf courses or swimming pools; but that's quality of life. That's the good part about living here in Reno is quality of life issues, so we need to expand on that.”

Moving forward, both Weiss and Lorton want the greater Reno community to become more aware and involved in what’s going on in their community.

“The greater Reno community really needs to participate and pay attention to when developers come in with plans, because there's a lot going on that's out of the public view and we really need to stay vigilant,” Weiss said. “Had I had any idea that [Reno Land’s proposed] plan didn't really need to mean much, I would have been at that meeting in a heartbeat. I didn't realize that I was going to have to become a political activist in the middle of the pandemic and try to also save my business at the same time. So the greater community needs to stay vigilant and pay attention when their offers come in with plans because what's happening behind closed doors and what's happening in public is not always the same thing and that's very unfortunate. It puts us in a really tough spot.”

She considers losing the city’s only indoor tennis courts, and two pools, a huge loss to the community, and several swimming and tennis families we spoke to agreed. Watchdog websites have also been keeping tabs on this story, but have not gotten rebuttals from City Council members either.

Reporting and Photos by Scott King for Our Town Reno