Virginia-Street-Bus-RAPID-Transit

Attachment to the Finding of No Significant Impact Grant Applicant: Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada Project Sponsor: Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County Project: Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Project Location: Reno, Nevada The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Washoe County, Nevada, in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), prepared the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.), the Federal Transit Law (49 USC Chapter 53), the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.), the National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC 300101 et seq.), Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544) and Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations). This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) hereby incorporates the EA by reference. The purpose of this Project is to increase transit ridership and connectivity, enhance pedestrian safety, and improve accessibility to transit in the Virginia Street corridor. The FTA is the lead federal agency and the RTC is the Project sponsor. The EA discussed and summarized: (1) the Purpose and Need for the Project, (2) alternatives development and analyses to arrive at the Preferred Alternative, (3) the environmental consequences of the No-Build Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, (4) the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) evaluations, and (5) the public outreach and agency coordination activities conducted with the purpose of involving stakeholders in the environmental review process. The EA was completed and released for public and agency comment in June 2017. The FTA and the RTC have considered the EA analysis and public comments in the preparation of this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). They have selected the Preferred Alternative, as described below and discussed in detail in the EA. The public comments did not reveal any new information or raise any issues that would require new analyses. This FONSI commits to implementation of the mitigation measures identified to minimize impacts, as described below and presented in the EA.

Project Description The Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project (the Project) is in Reno, Nevada, and consists of transit improvements along North Virginia Street and South Virginia Street, as well as various side streets. Under the proposed Project, RTC plans to construct a 1.8-mile extension to its existing bus rapid transit (BRT) service (the RAPID) operating in the Virginia Street corridor from its existing northern terminus at the 4TH STREET STATION transfer terminal in Downtown Reno to the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) campus. The Project includes building five new RAPID stations and replacing three bus shelters with full RAPID stations; acquiring right of way (ROW); and creating exclusive bus lanes, traffic signal priority at five intersections, off-board fare collection, level boarding, and real-time bus arrival information at stations. The Project also includes purchasing two electric buses, constructing two roundabouts at intersections to improve bus turning movements and enhance traffic operations and safety,

1 and improving sidewalk and crosswalk infrastructure to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle network and visibility in the corridor. Finally, the Project includes parking and access management, utility relocations, and drainage improvements. As shown in Figure 1, the boundaries of the 3.23-mile Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project are Plumb Lane/South Virginia Street to the south and the UNR Lawlor Events Center at approximately 15th Street/North Virginia Street to the north.

2 Figure 1. Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project

3 Alternatives The Preferred Alternative The RTC proposes to implement a 1.8-mile extension of existing RAPID service that currently runs along the Virginia Street corridor from its south terminus at the Meadowood Mall to its north terminus at the 4TH STREET STATION transfer terminal in Downtown Reno. The Project will extend RAPID service from the 4TH STREET STATION to the UNR campus (Figure 2) at the Lawlor Events Center near the intersection of 15th Street and North Virginia Street. Proposed improvements at the northern terminus of the RAPID extension are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. University of Nevada, Reno Campus

4 Figure 3. Planned Station at Lawlor Events Center

Operating Plan and Running Way RAPID buses will operate at a 10-minute headway on weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m., and at a 12-minute headway on weekends from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. The Project will add two electric buses to the existing Virginia Street corridor RAPID fleet. The Project includes construction and operation of five new RAPID stations along North Virginia Street. Three existing passenger shelters that serve the RAPID will be replaced with full RAPID stations along South Virginia Street, as shown in Figure 4. An example of an existing full RAPID station that will be similar to the planned design for the new RAPID stations is shown in Figure 5. To address and improve transit travel times, the Project will include the conversion of one travel Transit-only lane: A transit lane is a restricted lane in both directions to a transit and bicycle lane traffic lane reserved for the exclusive use of on a portion of South Virginia Street from Wells transit vehicles. Avenue to Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue and the conversion of one travel lane southbound on Transit and bicycle lane: A transit and bicycle North Virginia Street between 8th Street and 10th lane is a restricted lane reserved for the use of Street and College Drive to 15th Street. The transit vehicles and bicycles. No other traffic Project will include the conversion of one travel may use this lane. lane northbound to a transit-only lane between 8th Mixed-use lane: A mixed-use lane refers to a Street and 15th Street and southbound between lane in which transit vehicles, bicycles, and 10th Street and College Drive. In total, 1.0 mile of private vehicles all may travel. dedicated transit-only or transit and bicycle lanes will be constructed.

5 Figure 4. RAPID Service Component of the Project

6 Figure 5. Example of Proposed RAPID Station Design

As illustrated in Figure 6, the Project will have RAPID buses operate in a dedicated transit lane traveling northbound on North Virginia Street from 8th Street to 15th Street and traveling southbound between 10th Street and College Drive. A dedicated transit and bicycle lane will be included on southbound North Virginia Street from 8th Street to 10th Street and from College Drive to 15th Street; and in both directions on South Virginia Street from Wells Avenue to Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue. RAPID buses will operate in mixed-use lanes traveling southbound on South Virginia Street from Liberty Street to Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue and traveling northbound from Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue to Center Street. Currently, Transit Signal Priority (TSP) operates only along the South Virginia Street portion of the corridor. The Project will add TSP capabilities to the major intersections along North Virginia Street. Throughout North Virginia Street and South Virginia Street, there will be TSP, traffic signal relocations, and modifications. Between Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue and Vassar Street, the Project will remove one travel lane in both directions to provide space along the street for a two-way left-turn lane and pedestrian amenities. In the eight-block segment between Vassar Street and Liberty Street, the Project will remove the two-way left-turn lane and install a center median to improve safety, improve transit running times, and provide space along the street for parking and pedestrian amenities. Left-turn opportunities to support traffic circulation and business access will be provided at the Center Street/Mary Street roundabout, at West Taylor Street, at St. Lawrence Street, and the signalized California Avenue intersection for northbound traffic, and at Stewart Street and Cheney Street for southbound traffic.

7 Figure 6. Travel Lane Design for the Project

8 Roadway upgrades consisting of surface rehabilitation or reconstruction and restriping will be provided throughout the Project area. The Project will include the construction of two new roundabouts to improve safety and transit/traffic operations. One will be constructed at the intersection of Mary Street/Center Street and South Virginia Street to improve area circulation and traffic flow. A second roundabout will be constructed on North Virginia Street just north of the UNR Lawlor Events Center to serve as the northern terminus of the RAPID route and facilitate the RAPID turn-around. Additionally, the Project will include the relocation of overhead and subsurface utilities to remove obstructions within the sidewalks and accommodate wider sidewalks along South Virginia Street. The Project also will implement drainage improvements throughout the Project corridor. Determined Station Stops The Project includes the construction of eight new RAPID stations. The station locations were selected based on their ability to enhance safety and mobility for all users traveling between UNR and other areas of the community, in accordance with the Project’s Purpose and Need. Providing high-capacity, high- frequency RAPID transit service between Midtown and the University will increase connectivity, increase transit ridership, and reduce auto use. All stations will include off-board fare collection, level boarding, and NextBus real-time bus arrival information. These BRT features speed up transit boarding and alighting, improve transit travel times, provide for improved customer convenience, and support Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility. On South Virginia Street, the Project includes two new southbound stations located between East Liberty Street and California Avenue, and between La Rue Avenue and Martin Avenue. The proposed northbound station will be located between Holcomb Avenue and East Regency Way. These stations will replace existing small passenger shelters and provide full services and amenities consistent with RAPID operations. This portion of the Project serves the Midtown District, which is an emerging center for local businesses, including shopping, dining, entertainment, technology, and the arts. These stations also serve a combination of single-family historic neighborhoods and higher-density multi-family housing. BRT stations at the University will be located strategically to best serve three areas used by large numbers of students, faculty, and staff, generally located at half-mile intervals: • Northern campus area, which provides access to major activity centers such as Lawlor Events Center, Mackay Stadium, the Student Union, and IGT Knowledge Center • Central campus area, where a concentration of on-campus student housing is located • Southern campus area, which includes the southern entrance to campus from Interstate 80 (I-80) and the historic Quadrangle, known as the Quad The northbound station north of 15th Street will be located immediately south of the roundabout that will function as the northern terminus of the route and serve users in both directions of travel. This station serves major athletic events at the 11,500-seat Lawlor Events Center and 30,000-seat Mackay Stadium, as well as other activity centers, including the IGT Knowledge Center, Joe Crowley Student Union, and E.L. Wiegand Fitness Center. The proposed northbound and southbound stations near College Avenue will serve the central portion of the campus, including a concentration of on-campus student housing. This station area includes Nye Hall (houses 555 students), Argenta Hall (houses 750 students), Canada Hall (houses 223 students), Great

9 Basin Hall (housing for 400+ students now under construction), and a private student housing/mixed-use development called the Towers at Pink Hill. The planned northbound and southbound stations between 8th Street and 9th Street will serve the southern entrance to the University. The stations will provide access to the Quad and buildings in the University of Nevada National Historic District, which is bounded to the south by 9th Street. During public outreach, the Project station design between 8th Street and 9th Street was preferred by 82 percent of survey respondents over the alternative that maintained the existing configuration at this location. As described in the Project’s Purpose and Need, I-80 was constructed in the 1970s and forms a barrier between Downtown Reno and the UNR campus. In addition, a poor pedestrian environment hinders accessibility and discourages walking between these two major activity centers and to RAPID stations. This Project will address these needs and improve multimodal mobility and access. Planned roadway improvements in this block include the following, as shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9:

 Widen the 11-foot-wide southbound curbside travel lane to 14 feet to accommodate a bus/bicycle only lane  Add a five-foot-wide northbound bicycle lane  Widen the 10-foot and 11-foot travel lanes to 12 feet  Install a center median with a left-turn pocket  Construct ADA-accessible sidewalks on both sides of the street  Provide landscaping, street trees, and lighting in accordance with City of Reno standards The southbound RAPID station will be located between 8th Street and 9th Street and will include the construction of wider, ADA-accessible sidewalks. Because there are buildings on the west side of the street that are considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Project has minimized or avoided ROW impacts on the west side of the street on this block. The planned northbound RAPID station between 8th Street and 9th Street will have a bus turn-out that transitions into a queue jump lane. Because 8th Street serves as a frontage road that connects to the I-80 freeway ramps at the Virginia Street interchange, maintaining traffic operations is important at this location to avoid traffic backups on I-80. The bus turn-out/queue jump lane allows transit vehicles to pull out of the flow of traffic for customer boarding and alighting. Combined with two northbound general- purpose travel lanes, the Project meets level-of-service standards for traffic operations. The bus turn-out and station are sized to accommodate the RTC RAPID, RTC fixed-route RIDE, RTC ACCESS paratransit, and UNR campus shuttle buses, as shown in Figure 7. It will have covered seating for transit customers using all services. Due to an anticipated high volume of pedestrian activity, this station also will include sufficient areas for walking both in front of and behind the transit station, providing ADA access. Bicycle and bikeshare parking will be provided. Existing structures on the east side of Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street are located at the back of the existing narrow sidewalk and within the footprint of the proposed improvements, as shown in Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11. The existing ROW at this location is 80 feet wide and the Project improvements require 119.5 feet. Eliminating Project elements such as bike lanes or the center median/turn lane would not reduce the space requirements to the degree that the Project could be constructed within the existing ROW. Driveway access from Virginia Street also will be eliminated on the east side of this block. As a result of these impacts, five parcels on the east side of the street would be acquired and businesses and tenants relocated in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E.

Figure 7. Roadway and Station Improvements at North Virginia Street South of 9th Street .

11 Figure 8. Property Acquisitions Resulting from Roadway and Transit Station Improvements at North Virginia Street South of 9th Street

12 Figure 9. Existing and Planned Cross Sections

13 Figure 10. Project Footprint between 8th Street and 9th Street

The red line depicts the encroachment of the project features onto private property. The black arrows indicate existing driveway access that would be eliminated.

14 Figure 11. South on Virginia Street from 9th Street Showing Buildings at Back of Sidewalk

Multimodal Access The Project will incorporate design elements for sidewalks and bicycles to accommodate the needs of all roadway users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation, in a way that is sensitive to the local land use context. As described in the Project’s Purpose and Need, I-80 was constructed in the 1970s and forms a barrier between Downtown Reno and the UNR campus. In addition, a poor pedestrian environment hinders disabled pedestrians and discourages walking between these two major activity centers and to RAPID stations along Virginia Street. Through improved transit connectivity and the installation of ADA-compliant sidewalks and bicycle facilities, the station locations and operating plan will enhance mobility between UNR and other areas of the community for non-motorized users. Providing high-capacity, high-frequency transit service to Midtown and the University will increase connectivity through transit ridership and reduce auto use, particularly for students, faculty, and staff. These improvements, shown on Figure 12, will enhance access to transit stops. Pedestrian facilities will be reconstructed to comply with ADA accessibility standards. This includes removing sidewalk obstructions, widening sidewalks, and installing ramps. The Project will provide bulbouts, wider sidewalks, additional crosswalks, and other pedestrian features along South Virginia Street to create a more inviting and safer walking environment and to enhance access to transit services. The Project also will provide pedestrian-scale lighting along South Virginia Street and at select locations of North Virginia Street to enhance walkability, visibility, aesthetics, and safety.

15 Figure 12. Multimodal Access with the Project

16 Intersection geometry and signal modifications are anticipated at cross-streets along Virginia Street due to changes in running way and sidewalk geometries. In addition, the Project may consolidate driveway accesses along South Virginia Street to reduce friction between vehicular traffic and transit vehicles. The Project includes dedicated bicycle lanes and shared transit and bicycle lanes throughout the North Virginia Street Project area. In the South Virginia Street section, the Project includes mixed-use travel lanes called sharrows from Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue to Liberty Street and shared bicycle/transit lanes from Wells Avenue to Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue. As part of the overall bicycle network, way-finding signage will be included along South Virginia Street to improve bicycle circulation and side-street bicycle connectivity to the RAPID. The Project will remove the on-street parking along the east side of North Virginia Street from 8th Street to 9th Street to facilitate the dedicated bicycle lanes and transit station. Buildings in this segment have off-street parking areas. Along the west side of North Virginia Street from 15th Street to the northern Project limit, the on-street parking will be removed to allow for the roundabout. Along South Virginia Street, on-street parking will be maintained to the greatest extent feasible with isolated removal of parking spaces between Vassar Street and Liberty Street to accommodate multimodal improvements. Details on parking can be found in Chapter 3 under the Traffic and Parking section of the EA. Figure 13 shows a center median on South Virginia Street between Vassar Street and Liberty Street. The median will limit left turns into and out of individual driveways, as well as at some intersections. The median is essential to improve safety, improve transit running times, and accommodate the public’s desire for a “less auto-centric” environment by providing the widest possible sidewalks and minimizing the loss of curbside parking. Left-turn opportunities to promote traffic circulation and business access will be provided in this eight-block segment at the Center Street/Mary Street roundabout, at West Taylor Street and St. Lawrence Street for northbound traffic, and at the signalized California Avenue intersection for northbound traffic, and at Stewart Street and at Cheney Street for southbound traffic. The Project includes landscaping elements near and around the transit station between 8th Street and 9th Street and the roundabout at North Virginia Street and the UNR Lawlor Events Center. Landscaping elements also will be included in the South Virginia Street section. Proposed sidewalks along the whole Virginia Street Project corridor will feature varying hardscape textures and street trees. Other Alternatives Considered Other alternatives were considered but dismissed from evaluation. In the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA, Chapter 2, Alternatives Analysis, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process, there is a discussion of the alternatives development and evaluation process, which involved a wide range of stakeholders working with the RTC study team through dozens of community and business meetings to evaluate RAPID routes and station locations, and to recommend a mix of design options to meet the Purpose and Need of the Project.

17 Figure 13. Proposed Improvements on South Virginia Street

Existing South Virginia Street

Project Improvements on South Virginia Street

18 A summary of station location alternatives considered but eliminated is provided below:

 Northbound station north of 9th Street—A station at this location would require property acquisition from Manzanita Bowl in the University of Nevada National Historic District, impacting a Section 4(f) resource; it would require changing a portion of the Orr Ditch, resulting in an impact to a potential water of the U.S.; it would conflict with pedestrian crosswalks; and it is not consistent with adopted local plans. Figure 14 illustrates the locations of Manzanita Hall and the Manzanita Bowl greenspace, part of the UNR Historic District.

Figure 14. Manzanita Hall and Bowl Greenspace, part of UNR Historic District

 Southbound station north of 9th Street—A station at this location would eliminate driveways and remove access from a local business; eliminate on-street parking between 9th Street and 10th Street; involve potential hazardous materials sites; and it is not consistent with adopted local plans.  Northbound station south of College Drive—A station at this location would create unsafe pedestrian and driver conditions and access problems due to proximity to a major driveway and crosswalk location.  Southbound station north of Mary Street—A station at this location would conflict with transit operations and traffic approaching the roundabout.

19 A No-Build Alternative provided a basis for comparison with any action alternative, defined here as the Preferred Alternative. For this reason, the No-Build Alternative was carried forward for analysis in the EA, even though it does not meet the Purpose and Need for the Project. Aerial photos of the No-Build Alternative are in Appendix A of the EA. For more information regarding the alternatives development process and alternatives evaluated, refer to the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA.

Project Costs The costs for this Project are estimated to be $80,775,726. The estimated costs, shown below in Table 1, have been separated into FTA’s Standard Cost Categories (SCC) and are derived from the preliminary design of the Project.

Table 1. Estimated Costs by FTA Standard Cost Categories

Uses of Funds (By FTA Standard Cost Categories) Costs Percent of Total 10 Guideway and Track Elements $1,191,367 1.5% 20 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodal (8) $4,831,159 6.0% 30 Support Facilities $449,915 0.6% 40 Sitework & Special Conditions (includes demolition) $33,783,265 41.8% 50 Systems $1,563,333 1.9% 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $13,625,907 16.9% 70 Vehicles (2) $3,085,134 3.8% 80 Professional Services (applies to Cats. 10-50) $15,966,310 19.8% 90 Unallocated Contingency $6,279,336 7.7% 100 Finance Charges $0 0.0% Total Project Costs $80,775,726 100.0%

Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts result from the incremental effect of a proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). These impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Due to the limited direct and indirect impacts of this Project to the natural and built environment, the discussion of Project-level contributions to cumulative impacts are limited to the following topics:

 Property Acquisitions  Environmental Justice  Mobility Property Acquisitions Full and partial land acquisitions, displacements of residences and businesses, and permanent and temporary easements will be required for the Project. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.7 of the EA, five full parcels would be needed for the Project along North Virginia Street and one full parcel would be required along South Virginia Street. These acquisitions represent businesses, two apartment buildings, and an unpaved empty lot. Five of these properties would need to be acquired for a new RAPID station and one on South Virginia Street would be needed for a new roundabout. These changes are compatible

20 and supported by the City of Reno’s plans for Virginia Street. The Project falls within a primary Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) corridor, which targets locations for transit infrastructure, such as stations, to foster economic development. Environmental Justice As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.9, of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA, the Project corridor contains a low-income environmental justice community. Anticipated impacts of the Project include the removal of five businesses and two residential apartment buildings, as well as intermittent parking losses within the corridor. However, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements— along with other facility improvements—will enhance connectivity and cohesion within the area. As noted above, the City has plans and policies to preserve and increase affordable housing in the region and corridor. Policies support affordable housing that occurs in TODs, regional centers, and near community services. While the provision of expanded BRT service on Virginia Street is anticipated to have a positive indirect effect to land use and economic development, it may have a negative effect on affordable housing. Several plans have been developed that would counter these indirect effects of the Project. The RTC has initiated an Affordable Housing Study to identify strategies it can undertake to support the development of affordable housing near transit. This study will focus primarily on BRT station areas and other high- frequency, high-ridership routes. It will include market analysis, station area planning, and extensive coordination with both public and private stakeholders interested in affordable housing. Furthermore, the City of Reno recognizes that, like many cities throughout the U.S., housing prices are increasing. The City has set goals already to maintain or increase the share of affordable housing and it is striving to expand and preserve affordable and mixed-income housing opportunities. The Virginia Street corridor has been identified as a TOD corridor by the City. This Project, through the implementation of improved bus RAPID service, will support the development of Virginia Street as a mixed-income, multi- use corridor, and it is consistent with the City's existing goals to support affordable housing and mixed- income housing opportunities. Mobility In addition to the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project, the RTC’s five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program includes the following investments in the Project area:  4th Street/Prater Way Corridor—Multimodal improvements, including BRT service, accessible sidewalks, and dedicated bicycle lanes from Evans Avenue to Pyramid Highway (under construction)  Evans Avenue Multimodal Improvements—Shared-use path or bicycle lanes from McCarran Boulevard to 2nd Avenue (under construction)  2nd Street Pedestrian and ADA Improvements—Pedestrian safety improvements from Keystone Avenue to Interstate 580 (I-580) (scheduled for Fiscal Year 2018)  Center Street Multimodal Improvements—Widen existing sidewalks and stripe bicycle lanes from South Virginia Street to I-80 (scheduled for Fiscal Year 2019-2020)  Forest Street Multimodal Improvements—Bicycle and pedestrian improvements from California Avenue to Mt. Rose Street (scheduled for Fiscal Year 2020-2021)  Sierra Street Multimodal Improvements—Widen sidewalks and stripe bicycle lanes from California Avenue to 9th Street (scheduled for Fiscal Year 2020-2021) The cumulative impact of these projects will be a substantial improvement in bicycle and pedestrian network connectivity between the UNR campus, downtown Reno, and the Midtown District. Providing a

21 network of active transportation facilities and improving access to transit stops will reduce reliance on automobiles and increase the mode share for walking, bicycling, and transit. In addition, the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) currently is developing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a range of alternatives for the I-80/I-580/U.S. Highway 395 (US 395) interchange, known locally as the Spaghetti Bowl. Analysis of this system-to-system interchange complex includes the nearby Virginia Street/I-80 interchange. The DEIS will identify alternatives to improve traffic safety and operations. Because the environmental process is expected to be ongoing for the next two years, it is not yet known what improvements may be made. The University is growing to accommodate an increasing student population. The UNR Campus Master Plan identifies the Campus Gateway Precinct as the area between 9th Street and I-80 extending eastward from Virginia Street to Evans Avenue. The plan envisions that this area would include a mix of campus- serving uses with programs that integrate the broader Reno community. This area could include University housing, academic space, University innovation and research partnership opportunities, student amenities, and vibrant streets and public spaces. No specific site plans for this area have been identified. However, it is anticipated that higher levels of student activity will occur in this area as growth continues.

Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and Public Opportunity to Comment Agency Coordination and Public Involvement RTC conducted a thorough agency coordination and public involvement process, initiated in early 2015. The community input received during these outreach efforts shaped the development of the alternatives considered and the selection of the Preferred Alternative. As described in the Public Outreach and Agency Coordination section of the EA, a series of four community information meetings and community planning workshops were held between April 2015 and August 2015. At these interactive workshops, the public was invited to discuss the Purpose and Need for the Project and to review and provide input on detailed maps and graphic depictions of various design options. These comments were used to refine the alternatives and design options that were presented for additional input at following meetings. The public comments incorporated into the options related to bicycle facilities, sidewalk width, street trees, on-street parking, transit stop locations, center turn lanes, transit route locations, RAPID station design concepts, intersection designs, and other issues. More than 20 other meetings were held with local advisory committees, business groups, and other interested stakeholder groups to guide the development of the Preferred Alternative. In addition, RTC met with any member of the public upon request to discuss the Project. For several weeks following the planning workshops, RTC conducted a community preference survey regarding the various options. Printed copies of the survey were available at RTC meetings and an electronic version of the survey was available at www.VirginiaStreetRAPIDextension.com. More than 300 surveys were completed. RTC also conducted a door-to-door survey of 46 Midtown businesses to gather additional input about their priorities regarding the primary differences in the Midtown cross sections, including sidewalk width, bicycle lanes, on-street parking, and left-turn restrictions. Based on consideration of public comments, recommendations regarding the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) were made at Reno City Council meetings on July 29, 2015, and October 7, 2015. The LPA was adopted by the RTC on October 16, 2015, based on consideration of public comments. Below is a summary of agency coordination (Table 2) and public outreach activities (Table 3).

22 Table 2. Agency Coordination Activities

Agency/Committee Description Meeting Dates RTC Technical Advisory  Comprised of representatives from the City of  March 4, 2015 Committee Reno, City of Sparks, Washoe County, NDOT,  July 1, 2015 Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency,  September 6, 2017 Federal Highway Administration, Washoe County Health District, Reno-Tahoe International Airport Authority, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, and Washoe County School District  Purpose is to provide technical recommendations to the RTC Board Reno Access Advisory Reviews City codes and policies to ensure March 24, 2015 Committee (ACC) accessibility to persons with disabilities Virginia Street RAPID  Comprised of representatives from the City of  March 26, 2015 Extension Technical Reno, NDOT, Nevada Energy, RTC, and UNR  May 14, 2015 Advisory Committee  Provides technical guidance to the Project team  July 14, 2015 on various issues and is a forum for agency  May 19, 2017 coordination Reno City Planning Advises the City Council on long-term physical April 22, 2015 Commission development issues related to natural resources, economics, housing, population, land use, and zoning to ensure that Project development is consistent with the City’s vision Reno City Council  Made up of seven elected officials  April 29, 2015  Makes policy decisions for the city government  July 29, 2015  October 7, 2015 Reno Historical Serves as an official advisor to the City on matters January 14, 2016 Resources Commission relating to historical preservation and cultural resources Nevada State Historic  The SHPO sent a letter to RTC concurring with  APE concurrence letter Preservation Office the adequacy of the Area of Potential Effect received July 21, 2015 (SHPO) (APE) for the analysis of Cultural Resources  SHPO letter dated July  The SHPO sent a letter to RTC regarding their 28, 2016 review of compliance with Section 106  November 1, 2016  The SHPO sent a letter to FTA in response to additional information submitted by FTA  March 17, 2017  The SHPO sent a letter to FTA concurring that the undertaking will result in No Adverse Effects to historic resources Reno Office of the U.S. Conducted informal consultation with Chris Nicholi March 9, 2015 Fish and Wildlife Service of the USFWS on Special-Status Species of flora and (USFWS) fauna in the study area Nevada Division of David Catalano with the NDOW provided April 7, 2015 Wildlife (NDOW) consultation regarding bats in the study area

23 Table 3. Public Outreach

Agency/Committee Description Meeting Dates RTC Citizen Advisory  The RTC Citizen Advisory Committee has been  March 4, 2015 Committee/RTC consolidated with the RTC Bicycle/Pedestrian  April 22, 2015 Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee to create this 15-member  June 24, 2015 Advisory Committee Citizen Multimodal Advisory Committee (CMAC).  August 26, 2015  The committee includes four RTC RIDE users, two RTC ACCESS users, four bicycle and pedestrian representatives, and five general multimodal transportation users. Community Working A group of 22 businesses and organizations that was  March 23, 2015 Group established to help develop community-based  April 30, 2015 decisions on the Project. Community Information The purpose of the community meetings was to  April 14, 2015 Meetings/Community provide information and receive feedback from the  April 15, 2015 Planning Workshops public.  June 18, 2015  August 25, 2015 Great Streets Coalition  Made up of community members and  April 21, 2015 organizations in Reno.  May 20, 2015  The purpose is to ensure the Project will  July 27, 2015 transform the area into a great place for everyone. Ward 1 Neighborhood An advisory board comprised of 11 volunteer November 5, 2015 Advisory Board members that advise and comment on community issues Nevada Concrete  A professional organization November 18, 2015 Association  Presented Project updates Midtown Merchants  A professional organization  August 20, 2015 Association  Presented Project updates; received input;  September 17, 2015 listened to ideas, suggestions, and concerns  February 18, 2016 Nevada Museum of Art The meeting was part of the museum program on November 5, 2015 informational presentations and Q&A; open to museum members and the public. Local Business  Door-to-door business visits to drop off survey  June 2, 2015 Coordination fliers to businesses that have on-street parking on South Virginia Street; the purpose of the survey was to invite businesses to the June 18,

2015, Community Information Meeting

 Presented Project information at two locations (400 block and 900 block) within the corridor  July 28, 2016 during the Midtown Art Walk Postcard Mailings Mailed more than 5,200 postcards to property July 2, 2015 owners within a three-quarter mile radius of the Project to solicit participation in an online survey

24 Information Tools Project Website All Project news, updates, and other information is provided on the Project website. Public outreach activities to date can be found on the website. The public is encouraged to subscribe through the Project website to receive updates when new information is available, using this link: http://virginiastreetrapid extension.com. Project news also is available on the RTC website under HOT TOPICS: http://rtcwashoe.com/section-hot-topics. E-Letters/Project E-Blasts The Project team emailed those citizens subscribed to Project notifications prior to each of the Community Information Meetings regarding Project updates and announcing upcoming meetings. Other E-blasts were sent out regarding the online survey and to inform citizens of other community workshops. Additionally, an electronic Stakeholder Update will be created and distributed weekly to subscribers when construction activities begin until the Project is completed. Mailer/Postcards/News Announcements/Press Releases The Project team utilizes a variety of media/communication tools to engage the public and encourage participation in the public process. For citizens not on the email stakeholder list, the Project team used mailers, postcards, news announcements, and press releases to deliver Project notifications. Direct mail pieces were mailed to addresses within three-quarters of a mile of the Project boundaries. News releases were issued and media interviews conducted prior to community meetings, open house events, and forums. Social Media To broaden the community engagement and outreach, RTC utilizes its social media channels (Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube) to provide the public with information about the Project, upcoming meetings, and updates. These channels presented information about the Project as it was developed and encouraged the public to participate in the public process. Project Video A Project video was created and made available online July 8, 2015. To date, the video has received more than 400 views on RTC TV and YouTube. The video also plays on local cable channels and can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TefoTx68IB8. Public Opportunity to Comment The 30-day public review period for the EA started on June 6, 2017, and ended on July 6, 2017. A Public Hearing was held on June 22, 2017, at the Innevation Center, 450 Sinclair Street, Reno, Nevada. The public was notified of the availability of, and opportunity to review and comment on, the EA by the RTC in the local papers and on their websites. Printed copies of the EA were available at the following locations: Washoe County Downtown Reno Library City of Reno Clerk’s Office 301 S. Center Street 1 East 1st Street Reno, Nevada Reno, Nevada Regional Transportation Commission Engineering 1105 Terminal Way Reno, Nevada

25 Additionally, the document was available electronically on RTC’s website at www.rtcwashoe.com/ and on the Project website at http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/. During the review period, 18 individuals or organizations provided comments about the contents of the EA. The comments did not reveal any new information or raise any issues that would require new analyses. In response to comments, minor changes were incorporated to the Project improvements. The RAPID and Route 1 southbound station location on Virginia Street south of Liberty Street was moved closer to the Liberty Street intersection, which will avoid potential driveway and access impacts and provide better access to the existing crosswalk. The southbound left-turn pocket and raised center median opening for left-turn movements onto Stewart Street was changed to allow for better vehicular circulation in that area, which also will better accommodate existing business uses. The Project will maintain two through lanes and add bus pull-out and queue jump on Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street, instead of converting one lane to a bus lane, to maintain traffic flow from the I-80 ramps at 8th Street. Table 4, below, summarizes the responses to the most common public comment topics. Attachment A of this FONSI presents all the individual comments received during the public review period of the EA, with responses to each question.

Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response 1. Commenters asked The Project includes ROW acquisition on the east side of the street between 8th Street why the Project would and 9th Street to accommodate the design elements of the Project. The station locations involve acquisition of were presented to the public for comment and review in presentations or exhibits at five full properties. seven different Project meetings, and are available on the Project website http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com. The segment of Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street currently has narrow sidewalks with buildings located at the back of the sidewalk in many locations and numerous ADA deficiencies. This segment would be widened to accommodate the design elements of the Project, including bicycle lanes, sidewalks compliant with the ADA, street trees, a southbound bus-only lane, a northbound bus turn-out/queue jump lane, two northbound and one southbound general-purpose travel lanes, northbound and southbound RAPID stations, and a center median with left-turn pocket. The Project avoids property acquisitions on the west side of the street due to the presence of structures that are deemed to be potentially eligible for the NRHP.

The northbound station between 8th Street and 9th Street would have a bus turn-out that would accommodate the RAPID, RTC fixed-route RIDE, RTC ACCESS paratransit, and UNR campus shuttle buses. The bus turn-out transitions to a queue jump lane to allow transit vehicles to exit the station and maintain traffic operations. This station will have covered seating for transit customers at shelters for RAPID and regular fixed-route/UNR shuttle service. Due to an anticipated high volume of pedestrian activity, this station will include sufficient areas for walking both in front of and behind the transit station, providing ADA access. Bicycle parking and potential bicycle share parking also will be provided at this station.

8th Street serves as a frontage road that connects to the I-80 freeway ramps at the Virginia Street interchange. Maintaining traffic operations is important at this location to avoid traffic backups on I-80. The bus turn-out/queue jump lane allows transit vehicles to pull out of the flow of traffic. Combined with two northbound general- purpose travel lanes, the Project meets level of service standards for traffic operations.

26 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response Due to the proximity of buildings to the property line, construction of the Project would result in the acquisition of these buildings and relocation of businesses or tenants in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. The impairment of the use of the remaining property resulting from demolition of buildings and elimination of driveway access from Virginia Street requires the Project to acquire the full property rather than just a portion of it.

Chapter 3, Section 3.7, Acquisitions and Relocations, of the EA provides a description of the five properties to be acquired and a discussion of how and why these properties would be impacted. 2. Commenters asked RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate ROW acquisition activities until the what RTC’s plans are environmental review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of for disposing of the potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA-funded project land not needed for the in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property proposed RAPID would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section station on Virginia 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Street between 8th Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses Street and 9th Street. for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP) prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

27 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response 3. Commenters had Relocations will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance concerns about and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular business relocations 5010.1E. A relocation counselor from the Agency will contact and interview the displacee to find out the displacee’s needs and replacement site requirements and estimate the time needed to accomplish the move. Relocation services and payments will be explained in accordance with eligibility. It is important to explain to the counselor any anticipated problems. During the initial interview, the relocation counselor will ask many questions to determine the displacee’s financial ability to accomplish the move, including lease terms and other obligations.

The counselor will help determine the need for outside specialists to plan, move, and reinstall personal property. The counselor will identify and resolve any issues regarding what is real estate and what is personal property to be relocated. The counselor will explore and provide advice as to possible sources of funding and assistance from other local, state, and federal agencies. In addition, as needed, the relocation counselor will maintain listings of commercial properties and farms.

The goal is to achieve a successful relocation back into the community. Eligible business relocation services and reimbursements may include the following:  Actual, reasonable moving expenses to include related moving expenses, such as personal property losses, as applicable  Reasonable expenses incurred in searching for a replacement property not to exceed $2,500  Related eligible moving expenses that are actual, reasonable, and necessary: (1) Connection to available nearby utilities, (2) Professional services to determine a site’s suitability, or (3) Impact fees or one-time assessment for utility usage  Re-establishment payment for expenses incurred in relocation and re- establishing the enterprise at a replacement site, not to exceed a $25,000  Fixed payment, as eligible, in lieu of actual moving expenses, personal property losses, searching expenses, and re-establishment expenses, not to exceed $40,000

28 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response 4. Commenters had Local and regional land-use plans and policies were reviewed to determine if the questions regarding Project is consistent and/or compatible with the plans of other agencies. In Chapter 3 of UNR plans and how the EA, Section 3.3, Land Use, there is a discussion of each of the plans that were they could potentially reviewed. The UNR Campus Master Plan (December 2015), the Regional affect the Project. Transportation Plan, the 2012 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, the City of Reno Master Plan, City of Reno University of Nevada Regional Center Plan, and the Virginia Street Corridor Investment Plan were reviewed and found to be compatible with the Project. Both the City of Reno and the UNR Plan include the extension of RAPID transit service to the University Campus and RAPID stations between 8th Street and 9th Street.

UNR is conducting campus planning activities for University-owned property to accommodate future growth. These efforts are ongoing and no specific plans have been released.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Description of the Preferred Alternative, in the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA, the Project proposes adding medians, reducing parking, and altering driveway access to properties in some locations to promote transit use while balancing the needs of vehicles. Although these modifications will alter access and circulation, they will continue to provide access to all properties and accommodate turning movements at key intersections. Additionally, as noted in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1, Traffic, all intersections along Virginia Street within the study area will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service as determined by the RTC.

In the eight-block segment between Vassar Street and Liberty Street, the Project will remove the two-way left-turn lane to improve safety and provide space along the street for parking and pedestrian amenities. Left-turn opportunities to support traffic circulation and business access will be provided at the Center Street/Mary Street roundabout, at West Taylor Street, at St. Lawrence Street, and at the signalized California Avenue intersection for northbound traffic, and at Stewart Street and at Cheney Street for southbound traffic.

29 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response

Construction can disrupt vehicle and pedestrian access at various locations and times throughout the duration of the Project. To mitigate this, RTC conducts public outreach prior to and during all construction projects. 6. Commenters As documented in the EA, the 26 on-street parking spaces that would be lost on North expressed concerns Virginia Street service existing businesses, multi-family, and institutional uses. Most of about the Project’s the existing on-street parking between 15th Street and the northern Project limit is potential impacts to on- included in “Residential Parking Zone 1” and the remainder is unrestricted free street parking on North parking. The impact of reduced on-street parking is expected to be minor because Virginia Street. several of these locations have off-street parking available. Seven of the permitted Zone 1 parking spaces to be lost are adjacent to vacant lots or multi-family residential that have off-street parking. Four of the permitted Zone 1 parking spaces are adjacent to two residences. However, this is offset by Zone 1 parking located within 300 feet to 400 feet from the residences on North Virginia Street. Businesses on the block between 8th Street and 9th Street have access to off-street parking.

The reduction of parking is fully consistent with the City of Reno Title 18 Annexation and Land Development code, which recognizes TOD Corridors and Regional Centers as places where “parking standards and policies are intended to minimize parking and encourage transit and pedestrian circulation.” The City of Reno has reduced parking requirements in TODs and Regional Centers, requiring one space per unit for residential development and no new parking spaces for existing non-residential development or any non-residential change of use.

Furthermore, parking needs will be reduced as a result of increased transit ridership and increased bicycle transportation. It is anticipated that the transit mode share at the University will increase from 7 percent to 22 percent with the introduction of RAPID service, based on analysis of data in the RTC Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Wheelchair Data Collection Program 2015 Annual Report. The mode share for bicycling is expected to more than double with the installation of bicycle lanes, further reducing demand for parking. For more information, see Appendix D, Traffic Technical Memorandum and Parking Impact Technical Memorandum. 7. Commenters Within any project area, there are always more needs than there are resources to expressed concerns address them. Therefore, it is necessary for projects to create a purpose and need about why more statement. This statement outlines the specific needs, problems, and geographic limits bicycle lanes are not to be addressed by the project. As stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, Purpose of the included in the Project, of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA, the purpose Midtown area. of this Project is to, “… increase transit ridership and connectivity, enhance pedestrian safety, and improve accessibility to transit in the Virginia Street corridor.” All proposed improvements included in the EA are measured against this stated Purpose and Need to determine if, and to what extent, they help to achieve the stated purpose of the Project. Only those improvements that help achieve the Project’s stated purpose are considered for inclusion in an alternative.

The bicycle lane locations in the Project are consistent with the RTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the Complete Streets Master Plan. Virginia Street in Midtown is not identified for bicycle lanes in these plans for several reasons. A continuous bicycle facility between UNR and Midtown would not be feasible through the downtown section of Virginia Street due to the narrow street width and frequent special event road closures. In addition, the lower traffic volumes on parallel streets

30 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response make them better suited to bicycle use.

Bicycle lanes on streets parallel to Virginia Street—including Center Street, Sierra Street, and Forest Street—have been included as separate projects in the RTC’s FY 2018-2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Bicycle lanes on Evans Avenue, a parallel street east of Virginia Street, were constructed in early 2018. 8. Several commenters To meet the Purpose and Need of the Project, an alternatives analysis process was had questions conducted over a nine-month planning period, as described in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, regarding the analyses Alternatives Development Process. Potential BRT routes, a variety of BRT station conducted and the locations, and several design options were studied and evaluated based on how well results of evaluations they met the Purpose and Need of the Project while avoiding and minimizing that led to the preferred environmental impacts. RTC conducted an agency coordination and public RAPID route, station involvement process to ensure Project stakeholders and the public were informed and locations, and design able to provide input about the Project. elements of the Project. Analysis of the alternatives also included reviewing local plans, including the Regional Transportation Plan, City of Reno Master Plan, and University of Nevada, Reno Campus Master Plan. The extension of RAPID transit to UNR, improved pedestrian facilities, and a closer link between campus, Downtown Reno, and South Virginia Street are fully supported in these plans.

The result of this analysis is the proposed action, referred to in the EA document as the Preferred Alternative. Table 4, Alternative RAPID Routes, and Table 5, Alternative RAPID Stations, present the results of the evaluations that led to the elements of the proposed action. Chapter 5, Public Outreach and Agency Coordination, provides a summary of the agency coordination meetings, public meetings, and the communication tools used to engage the public in the study process.

For figures that show the design details and road cross sections of the Project, review Appendix B, North Virginia Street and South Virginia Street Build Figures and Cross Sections, in the EA. Cross-section profiles of the stations were not developed for the EA. 9. Commenters Because it is considered good practice to work with stakeholders, the RTC partnered questioned the process with the City of Reno and UNR, as well as other community groups and interested the RTC went through members of the public, during the development of the Project. As noted in Chapter 5, to involve the general Public Outreach and Agency Coordination, in the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit public, public agencies, Extension Project EA, the RTC conducted a thorough agency coordination and public businesses, the City of involvement process to obtain input from the public during the planning process. As of Reno, and UNR to help the publication date of the EA, 14 different agency meetings/discussions and more than define the Project. 20 public outreach meetings had been held. This includes the Project Technical Advisory Committee, which is made up of representatives from the City of Reno, NDOT, UNR, and Nevada Energy. A list of agency coordination and public outreach activities can be found in Chapter 5, Section 5.1, Agency Coordination, and Section 5.2, Public Outreach. Several other information tools were made available—for example, Project websites, E-letters, an online survey, and social media channels— which also are described in Chapter 5. Agency coordination and public outreach will continue throughout the duration of the Project.

31 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response 10. Commenters asked The boundaries of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project are Plumb about the rationale for Lane/South Virginia Street to the south and the Lawlor Events Center at approximately having a North 15th Street/North Virginia Street to the north, including the existing RAPID route Virginia Street segment through Downtown Reno. The Project improvements will be implemented in North and a South Virginia Virginia Street and South Virginia Street with no physical changes planned for Street segment for the Downtown Reno. Since no improvements are planned for the Downtown Reno area, Project. the environmental review focuses on potential impacts to North Virginia Street and South Virginia Street. The corridor is linked by the strong travel demand between UNR, Downtown, and the Midtown area. Providing transportation infrastructure and services to better connect UNR to Midtown and other areas supports the Purpose and Need of the Project to increase transit ridership and connectivity and improve accessibility to transit. Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Description of the Preferred Alternative, provides more details of the Project corridor. 11. Commenters asked The Project will be completed using a mix of federal and local funds. Federal funding about how the Project sources include the Federal 5309 Small Starts program, Congestion Mitigation and Air is expected to be Quality (CMAQ) funds, Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG) funds, funded and what part and urbanized Area Formula Grants (5307 NV-95-X006-02). Local sources include of the Project costs are sales and fuel taxes. for ROW acquisitions. The current total estimated cost for this Project is $80,775,726. Property acquisitions and relocations are estimated to cost approximately $13.6 million. The total Project cost includes the purchase of all properties needed, both partial and full, throughout the corridor, as well as hazardous materials abatement and demolition. Please note that the anticipated costs for property acquisitions will be updated when the Project goes into final design and appraisals for property being acquired are conducted. Regarding funding, the Project is in the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and also is included in the adopted and Fiscal Year 2018–2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) as federal project WA20150060 “Virginia Street, Bus RAPID Transit Extension.” Table 6, Sources of Funding, in Chapter 3 of the Virginia Street RAPID Expansion Project Environmental Assessment, Section 3.3, Land Use, lists the sources of funding. 12. Given Reno’s While there may be disruptions to the community during the relocation process and current supply of construction, there will be no long-term disproportionate impacts to the low-income or affordable housing, a minority populations in the study area. The analysis of socio-economic data provided commenter expressed by the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the study corridor does contain a low- concern about the income community, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services displacement of poverty guidelines. Chapter 3, Section 3.9, Environmental Justice and Community property owners and Disruption, presents a socio-economic profile used to determine geographic locations tenants, especially of low-income households and describes the effects the proposed action would have on those of low income, as this community. a result of property acquisition. Section 3.9.1, Mitigation, presents a list of measures that will be taken to minimize community disruption from proposed residential relocations. RTC will make efforts to relocate persons in affected dwelling units within or near the community in which they currently reside. More information regarding impacts to low-income households and mitigation is included in Appendix I, Environmental Justice and Community Disruption Technical Memorandum.

Any ROW acquisition will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. Before the property is acquired, RTC is required to prepare a Relocation Plan that will

32 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response address the relocation of all displacements on the Project for both residential and nonresidential properties. The purpose of the Relocation Plan is to recognize the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and non-profit organizations and develop solutions to minimize the adverse impacts of displacement.

One aspect of the Relocation Plan involves a comparison of needs with available inventory. Projects requiring displacement of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and/or low-income tenants will require additional assistance in finding replacement housing. The Relocation Plan will seek to identify an available replacement dwelling for every displaced residential occupant (tenant-occupant or owner-occupant). If there is an apparent shortage of housing, the plan will indicate how the agency will make available such housing under the last resort housing provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E.

Properties not acquired as a direct result of this Project are not eligible for relocation assistance and are, therefore, not discussed in the EA.

As described in the Relocation: Your Rights and Benefits as a Displaced Person Under the Federal Relocation Assistance Program, the agency must provide comparable replacement housing that is decent, safe, and sanitary, and within an eligible displacee’s financial means. Actual, reasonable moving costs and certain related moving expenses may be reimbursed. RTC can authorize pre-payments for security deposits, typically equal to the first and last months of rent, to help assist in the securing of a rental property.

Replacement housing must meet standards for decent, safe, and sanitary housing as established by federal regulations:  Be in good repair and structurally sound  Contain a safe electrical wiring system  Contain a heating system  Be adequate in size  Contain a well-lighted and ventilated bathroom providing privacy  Contain a kitchen with usable sink and connections for a stove and refrigerator  Have unobstructed egress to safe, open space at ground level.

It must be within the financial means of the eligible displacee, meaning the monthly rent and estimated utility costs do not exceed the base monthly rent for the unit from which the displacee is displaced. If the displacee qualifies as low income based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) criteria, affordability will be based on 30 percent of the tenant’s monthly gross household income. Rental assistance payments will be computed using the lesser of the following three methods:  Rent and average monthly utility costs of unit to be displaced  30 percent of total monthly gross household income for a qualified low-income tenant  The total amount designated for shelter and utilities for a tenant receiving government assistance

33 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response

Last resort rental assistance payments for displacees of 90 days or more may be available if replacement dwelling unit costs as determined by the agency are higher than those of the previous dwelling unit. This is designed to enable rental of a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling for a 42-month period. The rental assistance payment includes the difference in cost between the previous unit’s rent and utilities with the new unit’s rent and utilities cost.

Other regional initiatives to address affordable housing issues are described below:  The Washoe County HOME Consortium is an intergovernmental program between the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, and Washoe County to assist lower-income families and individuals, including homeless and special-needs groups, to obtain affordable housing.  The Reno Housing Authority is the public housing authority for this region with the purpose of providing homes for those low- and moderate-income families and to provide jobs for the unemployed. The Reno Housing Authority manages several affordable housing programs.  Volunteers of America, with funding from Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County, provides a wide range of services at the Community Assistance Center located at 4th Street and Record Street in downtown Reno. This includes a 108-bed family shelter, a 50-bed women’s shelter, and a 158-bed men’s shelter. Social services, meals, and other resources are provided at the Community Assistance Center. The City of Reno also funds a temporary overflow shelter and is working toward development of a new permanent shelter with wrap-around services at a nearby Sage Street location. The region’s 10-year plan to address homelessness, Housing for All, is available at https://www.reno.gov/home/showdocument?id=8415.  RTC is joining with the City of Reno and local businesses to create a Downtown Business Improvement District (BID). A key function of the BID will be to provide Ambassadors, or staff, who connect homeless persons with the resources they need. Ambassadors also will provide general wayfinding assistance to anyone seeking information. RTC’s 4TH STREET STATION, due to its proximity to the Community Assistance Center and climate-controlled indoor waiting areas, frequently is used by homeless persons. RTC will be working closely with the City of Reno, social service providers, and the BID Ambassador Program to provide homeless support services.  The City of Reno Municipal Code includes a density bonus to encourage affordable housing as follows: “A developer can add 2.5 units for every one unit built that is affordable to households earning no more than thirty percent of the median household income. Two additional units are allowed for every unit built for households earning forty percent of median housing income, and 1.5 additional units are allowed for each unit built for households earning no more than 50 percent of median household income.”  The City of Reno funded the “Motels to Homes” Program in the amount of $100,000. The goal of the program is to identify families who are permanently residing in weekly motels and relocate them to permanent affordable housing with wraparound case management services. The program is implemented by Catholic Charities of Northern Nevada and St. Vincent’s. As stated by Catholic Charities CEO Peter Vogel, “Hundreds of families currently reside in weekly motels, and oftentimes, there are small barriers keeping them from moving into apartments or homes. For families that are living paycheck to paycheck, paying a rental deposit

34 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response on an apartment can be a major challenge.”  In addition, RTC supports City of Reno efforts to reduce homelessness through RenoWorks, an innovative 10-week work program designed to address unemployment and homelessness in the community. RenoWorks targets individuals residing in local shelters to provide life skills and education, full-time employment assistance, and intensive case management support. RTC provides transit passes to allow program participants to reach employment opportunities.  RTC has initiated an Affordable Housing Study to identify strategies to support development of affordable housing near RAPID service and other transit routes. 13. Commenters asked Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances specify procedures for the about the impacts from identification, evaluation, and treatment of historic and potentially historic properties. the Project to the Identified properties were evaluated based on eligibility criteria established for the historic properties on NRHP. Properties found to be eligible for listing on the Register were afforded special the west side of the 800 consideration during Project planning and implementation. block of Center Street. As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5, Historic Resources, and Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Memorandum, in the EA, the NRHP properties that are considered to be eligible have been identified. These include the properties on the 800 block of Center Street.

The parcels in question, those fronting Center Street between 8th Street and 9th Street, will not be impacted as a result of this Project. The Project would not require any full or partial acquisition of any properties on Center Street between 8th Street and 9th Street. The determination of no adverse effect on historic properties was affirmed by the Nevada SHPO. For more information about the determination of effect, please see Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Memorandum.

Information regarding the Project and its potential impacts on cultural resources was reviewed by the RTC, the FTA, and the Nevada SHPO. That review resulted in a determination that the Project will have no direct or indirect impact on significant cultural resources, be they archaeological, architectural, or historical in nature, including the properties on the 800 block of Center Street.

35 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response 14. Commenters were As part of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project, new and upgraded concerned about how pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included to improve multimodal connections to and the Project from transit. Improvements include the addition of bicycle lanes, bicycle signage, addresses/improves improved pedestrian facilities, and improved street lighting. Details about these bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including their proposed locations, are discussed in Chapter 2, Section safety. 2.2.3, Multimodal Access to Transit Stops, in Section 2.3.2 Design Options, in Table 3, Multimodal Components of the Preferred Alternative, and in Figure 7, Multimodal Access to Transit Stop Components of the Preferred Alternative, in the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA.

Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, Design Options, indicates that buffered bicycle lanes were studied but were not advanced due to ROW constraints and community input supporting wider sidewalks and retaining on-street parking.

Bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Project are consistent with the RTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Complete Streets Master Plan. Bicycle lanes on streets parallel to Virginia Street—including Center Street, Sierra Street, and Forest Street—have been included as separate projects in the RTC FY 2018-2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Bicycle lanes on Evans Avenue, a parallel street east of Virginia Street, were constructed in early 2018. 15. Commenters Improving ADA compliance throughout the corridor is a key component of the wanted to know if Project’s Purpose and Need. The Project will address the ADA compliance issues in pedestrian the corridor. Existing infrastructure within the study corridor—which includes curb improvements will ramps, driveways, and sidewalks—that is not compliant with current standards of the address ADA ADA, as amended, and infrastructure that is in a poor condition has been described in compliance issues in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, Section 1.3.2, Pedestrian Needs, of the EA. Addressing the corridor. ADA compliance issues through the design, construction, and—in many cases— reconstruction of ramps, driveways, and sidewalks within the Project limits is an important element of the Project. Refer to Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, Design Options for ADA Accessibility, and Chapter 2, Table 3, Multimodal Components of the Preferred Alternative, for details of the improvements. 16. Commenters asked Economic impacts to the community include acquisitions and displacements of about the anticipated businesses, residential housing, and parking. Benefits to the community include the economic impacts to economic benefits gained by having reliable transportation to get to work, school, or the community from shopping through improved transit access and travel times, enhanced pedestrian and the Project. bicycle accessibility and connectivity, improved air quality, and improved safety. Combined, these improvements will provide better access to jobs, economic benefits, educational opportunities, essential services, and activity centers along the corridor. For more details on community impacts and ways in which the RTC will minimize and mitigate community impacts during all phases of the Project, please see Appendix I, Environmental Justice and Community Disruption Technical Memorandum, in the EA.

RTC conducted a benefit-cost analysis for this Project that assessed projected savings related to travel time, vehicle operation costs, crash reductions, and vehicle emission reductions. This assessment confirmed that the benefits to the community as a result of the Project will greatly outweigh the Project costs. Using a 3-percent discount rate (2016 USD), the benefit-cost ratio for the Project is 2.44. Using a 7-percent discount rate, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.66.

36 Table 4. Summary of the Most Common Comment Topics Areas and Responses

Comment Topic Area Response 17. Commenters asked The difference in fares anticipated to be collected for transit stations one block apart about the difference in was not part of the analysis for locating stations. However, given the proximity of ridership (transit fares) stations only one block apart, it is expected that differences in ridership between one for a potential station location or another would be minimal. Fares on the RAPID extension are expected to located between 8th be the same as current system fares. Single-ride fares are $2 and reduced fares are $1, Street and 9th Street available to youth age 6 to 18, seniors age 65 or over, or disabled passengers. In and a potential station addition, 24-hour, 10-ride, 7-day, and 31-day passes also are available. Discounted just north of 9th Street passes for UNR students are available through the Wolf Pass program for $115 for the on North Virginia fall semester and $115 for the spring semester. Street. 18. Commenters were The Project does not include any street closures because these elements do not meet the interested to have RTC Purpose and Need of the Project. Chapter 2, Section 2.2, Description of the Preferred work with the City to Alternative, provides a description of the elements of the Project. While they are in the close 10th Street to Project’s APE, there will be no impacts to the Orr Ditch or Manzanita Hall. facilitate development and want to know about the Project’s impact to the Orr Ditch. 19. Commenters want The RTC is currently evaluating LID measures that may be included in the Project, to know if the RTC is including measures that encourage street tree growth. willing to incorporate some Low Impact Development (LID) measures into the Project.

Public Outreach for Construction Public outreach occurs prior to and during all RTC construction projects. Construction can disrupt vehicle and pedestrian access at various locations and times throughout the duration of the project. The RTC and the rest of the project team will work to support businesses within the corridor by developing business patronage programs that engage the community to participate. This demonstrates RTC’s commitment to businesses during construction of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Extension Project. RTC partners with businesses impacted during construction to promote awareness that they are open for business. Examples include signage, special events, and radio promotions. The Nevada Small Business Development Center also offers technical assistance to small business owners. Typically, the RTC develops an incentive program for the community to support businesses. Participants sign up to receive project updates through a project website. All businesses within project corridors are encouraged to participate at no cost to promote their business. The project team also creates and distributes contact cards to the corridor businesses and develops a Business Support Page on the project website. In addition, RTC uses social and traditional media to update the traveling public and the community on traffic control and project operations during construction. Other outreach programs and planning will occur prior to construction that will be used to communicate with residents, business owners and others about the details of the project phasing and schedule. These efforts enable businesses to better understand and prepare for the construction activities and access

37 changes that may affect their operations. Similar outreach efforts will be coordinated with the University of Nevada for the benefit of students and faculty when construction occurs on North Virginia Street.

Environmental Consequences For each environmental resource included in the EA, the Project team collected and evaluated environmental data, determined the presence/absence of each resource, and the relative importance of the resource in the study area. A team of resource specialists used a variety of techniques—including conducting field reconnaissance site visits; evaluating published reports, plans, and studies; and consulting with staff from resource agencies—to understand the affected environment along North Virginia Street and South Virginia Street. Chapter 3 in the EA provided a summary of the expected effects of construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative and the No-Build Alternative by resource topic. The following sections summarize the environmental impacts described in full in the EA, and mitigation commitments to reduce the impacts are included in Table 7 and Table 8. Air Quality Reducing automobile travel in the corridor will improve air quality. Conversion of a travel lane into a bus-only lane will reduce transit travel times and make transit more attractive relative to automobile use. Combined with the increased connectivity and transit frequency, the bus-only lane will contribute to a greater shift from auto trips to transit. Where RAPID transit exists today, transit has a 22-percent mode share, compared to a 7-percent transit mode share at UNR. The RAPID extension to UNR is expected to generate a transit mode shift of up to triple the current level on North Virginia Street. It is estimated that 20 percent of customers who will use the Virginia Street RAPID extension will switch from driving automobiles. As documented in the Small Starts Environmental Template submitted by RTC to the FTA in 2017, the number of new transit trips shifting from autos is projected to exceed 36,000 with completion of the Project. The installation of bicycle lanes will further reduce auto trips by making bicycling a safer and more convenient option. RTC data collection has demonstrated that roads with bicycle lanes have about 2.5 times greater mode share for bicycling. In addition, through the RTC electric bus program, the new transit vehicles that will serve the University RAPID corridor will be zero-emission electric buses, further improving air quality. Conformity The Project is included in the RTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), adopted on May 19, 2017, and in the adopted Fiscal Year 2018–2022 RTIP. Chapter 8 of the RTIP demonstrates the air quality analysis and conformity determination for both the 2040 RTP and the RTIP. The air quality analysis for the 2040 RTP was recommended for approval by the Interagency Air Quality Consultation Team on April 17, 2017, and a joint FHWA/FTA letter of conformity was issued on June 12, 2017. On June 28, 2017, the Interagency Air Quality Consultation Team recommended approval to use the air quality analysis from the 2040 RTP for the FY 2018–2022 RTIP, as no new projects triggering an air quality analysis are included. Following that action, the decision was made to use Fiscal Year 2018–2022 as the RTIP years. The FHWA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were consulted and it was agreed that the RTC could continue using the same air quality analysis as there were still no new projects triggering an air quality analysis.

38 Particulate Matter Hotspot As shown in the Project’s Traffic Technical Memorandum in Appendix D of the EA, the Project is primarily a transit facility improvement and transit extension project with pedestrian improvements. It will not generate new auto trips or vehicle miles traveled within the Project area or region. It will not result in a significant number of diesel vehicles in the Project area; nor will a significant number of diesel vehicles congregate at a single location; nor will it affect locations, areas, or categories of sites identified in the PM10 SIP as sites of violation or possible violation. Therefore, the Project is not a project of local air quality concern, and no further PM10 hotspot analysis is required. Carbon Monoxide Hotspot A CO hotspot screening analysis was conducted as recommended by the CO Protocol (University of California, Davis, 1997) and the EPA. Details of the screening analysis were included in the Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Technical Memorandum in Appendix E of the EA. The analysis concluded that current and future emissions should continue to follow existing trends and not be affected by this Project. Due to the nature of this Project, further carbon monoxide analysis is not required. Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis The Project has been determined to have a low potential for mobile source air toxics (MSAT) effects, because of the low volume of traffic on the affected roadways. This Project will not result in significant changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, basic Project location, or any other factor that will cause an increase in MSAT impacts. Construction Emissions During the construction phase of the Project, temporary increases in air pollutant emissions may occur from construction activities. The two most common construction-related emissions are particulate matter in the form of fugitive dust from construction sites, and MSAT emissions from construction equipment and related vehicles (such as delivery and vendor trucks). Construction activity associated with the Project will occur during a short timeframe and will not be concentrated in one location. Considering the temporary and transient nature of construction-related emissions, it is not anticipated that emissions from construction of this Project will have any significant impact on air quality in the area. Land Use Review of the City of Reno Master Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the RTC indicates that the Project is consistent with local and regional land use plans and policies. The existing land uses within 100 feet of the center line of Virginia Street are compatible with the Project. The extension of RAPID transit to UNR, improved pedestrian facilities, and a closer link between campus, Downtown Reno, and South Virginia Street are fully supported in the Regional Transportation Plan, the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, the City of Reno Master Plan, the University of Nevada, Reno Campus Master Plan, and the Virginia Street Corridor Investment Plan. Traffic and Parking Traffic Impacts A traffic impact analysis for the Project was conducted for the existing and future condition scenarios along arterials where the proposed improvements are located. Without any mitigation measures, the future build traffic operations analysis indicates that the signalized intersection of North Virginia Street at 8th Street will meet or exceed the thresholds set by the RTC’s adopted level of service (LOS) standards. Additionally, excessive queues are observed during traffic simulation at the intersection of North Virginia Street and 9th Street in the eastbound direction.

39 Traffic Mitigation With the proposed mitigations shown in Table 5, including traffic signal optimization, the intersection of Virginia Street and 8th Street will operate at an acceptable LOS D during the PM peak period. The queue length on the west leg of the intersection of Virginia Street and 9th Street is reduced to 119 feet during both the AM and PM peak periods. By implementing the mitigation measures, the analysis in the EA concluded that the Project will not adversely impact the traffic operations throughout the future 2035 horizon year. Parking Impacts Existing and future parking conditions were assessed to determine potential parking impacts. Currently, the University has approximately 8,300 parking spaces, of which 3,500 are in parking structures. Due to its unique tourism-based economy, Downtown Reno contains several parking garages operated by resort- casinos, which currently are open to the public free of charge. These structures include approximately 8,590 parking spaces within Downtown Reno. The City of Reno operates approximately 850 metered on- street parking spaces in Downtown Reno, which operate Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Additionally, there are seven parking garages/lots (3,200 spaces) not associated with casinos that either charge for parking or require validation by nearby businesses. As popularity of the Midtown District has grown, parking located in front of or adjacent to a business can be a challenge to find during peak periods. Businesses rely on a combination of private parking lots and on-street parking. There are 10,605 parking spaces in the Midtown District in addition to on-street parking within the residential neighborhoods. Along North Virginia Street, the Project will require removal of 37 of the 74 on-street parking spaces, 11 of which are permitted for local residential use only. The Project is expected to add on-street parking spaces at some locations and remove spaces at other locations along South Virginia Street. The existing 291 on-street spaces will experience a net decrease of three spaces, bringing the total to 288 spaces when the Project is completed. Parking needs are expected to be reduced because of increased transit ridership and increased bicycle transportation. It is anticipated that the transit mode share at the University will increase from 7 percent to up to 22 percent with the introduction of RAPID service, based on analysis of data in the RTC Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Wheelchair Data Collection Program. The mode share for bicycling is expected to more than double with the installation of bicycle lanes, further reducing demand for parking. Parking Mitigation UNR supports eliminating on-street parking along North Virginia Street to facilitate the goals of the Project. The UNR Master Plan states that the demand for institutional-use auto parking can be met with the overall capacity of campus parking garages. Along South Virginia Street, the maintained on-street parking will provide drop-off and loading access to businesses fronting Virginia Street, in addition to customer and resident parking. The parking maintained as part of the Project improvements also repurposes existing spaces to provide persons with disabilities, who are currently not accommodated, access to the commercial, residential, civil, and cultural centers. The parking losses as a result of the proposed transit and pedestrian improvements within restricted ROW width are offset by incorporating additional parking on side streets and southern portions of Virginia Street.

40 The loss of 26 on-street parking spaces on North Virginia Street is expected to be a minor impact because of the existing off-street parking. Parking spaces lost in Zone 1 will be offset by Zone 1 parking located within 300 feet to 400 feet from the residences on North Virginia Street and on Terrace View Drive and portions of 14th Street and 15th Street. The reduction of parking is fully consistent with the City of Reno Title 18 Annexation and Land Development code, which recognizes TOD Corridors and Regional Centers (such as Virginia Street in the Project area) as places where “parking standards and policies are intended to minimize parking and encourage transit and pedestrian circulation.” The City of Reno has reduced parking requirements in TODs and Regional Centers, requiring one space per unit for residential development and no new parking spaces for existing non-residential development or any non-residential change of use. Historic Resources Historic properties are present in the APE and the EA evaluated the potential for adverse effects on the properties. Criteria for assessing an adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5(a) and (a)(1)) were applied.

 No physical destruction, alteration, or removal of properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP will occur as a result of the Project.  Design and project implementation considerations integrated into the Project are sufficient to ensure that the integrity of location, design, setting, association, material, workmanship, or feeling that qualifies listed or eligible properties for the NRHP are not diminished with the introduction of new visual elements.  No historic properties will be transferred, leased, or sold out of federal ownership as a result of the Project.  Implementation of the RTC proposed monitoring program, discovery procedures, and burial procedures (see Zeier and Hall, 2017, Section 5) will greatly diminish, if not eliminate, the potential for effects to archaeological resources during construction of the Project. Based on these considerations, the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project was found to have no adverse effect on historic properties. The Nevada SHPO concurred with this determination in a letter dated March 17, 2017 (see Appendix F of the EA). Tribal Consultation The FTA has contacted interested parties, including Native American tribes, per 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(4) and other consulting parties per 36 CFR Part 800(c)(5), to help identify prehistoric sites, sacred sites, and/or traditional cultural properties located near the Project area. A letter dated October 1, 2015, from FTA Regional Administrator Leslie T. Rogers initiated tribal consultation. Formal consultation letters soliciting tribal input were sent to three tribes. None of the contacted tribal organizations have requested additional information, nor have any responded in a formal written manner. Noise and Vibration Noise The Project will extend RAPID service along North Virginia Street, add five new stations, provide dedicated transit lanes, and provide multimodal improvements. This will result in additional noise from RAPID buses being introduced in this highly urbanized landscape. The Project will generate noise that is similar to the noise currently experienced in the Virginia Street corridor. The two new buses will be

41 electric, minimizing noise impacts. Because of the density of buildings, there are intervening structures along the entire corridor, but there are no noise walls or earthen berms required. Vibration The Project was assessed for vibration impacts using the vibration screening procedure provided in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006). The result of the screening procedure indicates that no adverse vibration impact is likely and that a general vibration assessment is not necessary. Construction Noise Construction of portions of the Project are not expected to require the use of loud equipment or create noise impacts because of the short duration of construction at each location. In addition, any construction noise will be mitigated by limiting the loudest construction activities in residential areas to regular daytime hours. Acquisitions and Relocations Full and partial land acquisitions, displacements of residences and businesses, and permanent and temporary easements will be required for the Project. Full Land Acquisitions In the North Virginia Street section of the Project, five full-parcel land acquisitions are proposed between 8th Street and 9th Street on the east side of North Virginia Street for the RAPID transit station and pedestrian improvements. In the South Virginia Street section of the Project, one full-parcel land acquisition is proposed at Mary Street/Center Street on the west side of South Virginia Street for roundabout improvements. See Table 5, below, for a listing of all full-parcel acquisitions.

Table 5. Full-Parcel Acquisitions

Number of Establishment Assessor Parcel Parcel Size (Sq. Address Units/ Purpose Name Number Ft.) Businesses Corkscroo Bar 890 North RAPID station, and Pizzeria/ Virginia Street/ roadway, and Textbook 007-183-19 9,100 2 businesses 10 East 9th pedestrian Brokers Street improvements Bookstore RAPID station, 850 North 40 units/1 roadway, and Sundance Motel 007-183-18 23,100 Virginia Street business pedestrian improvements RAPID station, North Virginia 820 North 10 units/1 roadway, and 007-183-13 5,022 Apartments Virginia Street business pedestrian improvements Della N RAPID station, Apartments and 812 North 11 units/2 roadway, and 007-183-12 7,000 Inkaholics Virginia Street businesses pedestrian Tattoo improvements

42 Table 5. Full-Parcel Acquisitions

Number of Establishment Assessor Parcel Parcel Size (Sq. Address Units/ Purpose Name Number Ft.) Businesses RAPID station, 800 North 18 units/1 roadway, and Coed Lodge 007-183-11 7,000 Virginia Street business pedestrian improvements Bubble Tea 999 South Station Café/ 014-063-08 8,233 2 businesses Roundabout Virginia Street Romero et. al

Full acquisitions of the parcels between 8th Street and 9th Street on the east side of North Virginia Street have been proposed because the Project improvements, as planned, encroach into the existing structures. The existing ROW is 80 feet wide and the Project improvements require 119.5 feet in width to construct. Due to demolition of the structures and elimination of driveway access from Virginia Street, full property acquisition would be required. As part of the ROW acquisition process, appraisals of these properties will be performed. Full acquisition of the parcel at 999 South Virginia Street is required because the proposed roundabout and pedestrian improvements encroach on the parcel and would eliminate driveway access. To meet roadway design standards, the footprint of the roundabout does not fit within the existing ROW. The roundabout and pedestrian improvements have been planned to not encroach on all four properties adjacent to the intersection. The three other adjacent properties are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP. As part of the ROW acquisition process, an appraisal of this property will be performed. Under the Project, seven businesses, including two motels with 58 units and 21 residential units in two apartment buildings, would be displaced. All right-of-way acquisitions and relocations will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. The purpose of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E is to provide uniform and equitable treatment of all persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms and it establishes criteria for proper acquisition and relocation benefit impacts. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E require that persons to be displaced be provided with information they will need to minimize the disruption of moving and maximize the likelihood of a successful relocation. Relocation assistance payments are designed to compensate displaced persons for costs that are the result of acquisition of the property upon which they reside. The criteria contained in Nevada Revised Statutes Section 342 also provide guidance that is applicable to potential relocations within the Project by outlining specific services and assistance that must be provided by the governing body. Efforts will be made to relocate persons in affected dwelling units and businesses within or near the community in which they currently reside. All efforts will be made so that those displaced will be afforded properties that are comparable in size, safety, sanitary conditions, and overall decency and functionality as those being acquired. At the beginning of the right-of-way acquisition process, investigation of the special needs of all parties being relocated or selling a portion of their land will be

43 provided, with the goal being to accommodate these special needs, as required. Additional information about the relocation process and benefits is provided in Table 4. As described in Table 4 and Appendix A, RTC has received questions regarding disposition of land not needed for the proposed Project. RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate ROW acquisition activities until the environmental review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA-funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP) prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Table 6. Partial Land Acquisitions

Assessor Partial Establishment Parcel Size Address Parcel Acquisition Size Purpose Name (Sq. Ft.) Number (Sq. Ft.) University of 1014 North 007-020-08 5,267,711 19,101 Roundabout Nevada Virginia Street University of 1014 North Pedestrian 007-020-08 5,267,711 1,446 Nevada Virginia Street improvements Good Deals on 901 South 011-332-03 8,015 182 RAPID station Wheels Virginia Street Good Deals on 901 South 011-332-02 8,015 184 RAPID station Wheels Virginia Street

Permanent and Temporary Easements Construction of the Project would require numerous easements. In the North Virginia Street section of the Project, 12 permanent easements on six parcels and 20 temporary construction easements on 13 parcels are proposed. In the South Virginia Street section of the Project, 60 permanent easements on 50 parcels and 155 temporary construction easements on 127 parcels are proposed.

44 Mitigation Any ROW acquisition will comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. The criteria contained in Nevada Revised Statutes Section 342 also provide guidance that is applicable to potential relocations within the Project by outlining specific services and assistance that must be provided by the governing body. All reasonable opportunities to minimize the acquisition or impacts to private property will be taken during the final design stage. Also, RTC will make every effort to relocate persons in affected dwelling units and businesses within or near the community in which they currently reside. All efforts will be made so that those displaced will be afforded properties that are comparable in size, safety, sanitary conditions, and overall decency and functionality as those being acquired. At the beginning of the ROW acquisition process, investigation of the special needs of all parties being relocated or selling a portion of their land will be provided with the goal being to accommodate these special needs, as required. Hazardous Materials Between 8th Street and 9th Street on North Virginia Street, five parcels will be acquired on the east side of the street to build a new transit station, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements and roadway improvements. All such acquisitions involve some risk of encountering various common hazardous materials, such as lead-based paint, or asbestos; however, at this time, RTC does not anticipate encountering highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks that could have an adverse effect on public health or safety. The on- site and off-site concerns noted below will be considered by RTC as part of the site acquisition and planning efforts that are contemplated for the Project. On-Site Concerns The site survey and records search revealed no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the site. Site-related concerns that are notable include:

 Potentially hazardous building materials, including lead-based paint and asbestos-containing building materials in structures  Potential for elevated levels of lead in surface soils from both flaking paint and aerially deposited lead (ADL)  Lead solder in water piping  Potential undocumented underground heating oil tanks associated with long-ago demolished properties Off-Site Concerns The records research identified that there are documented environmental concerns with adjacent and nearby properties, including:

 The Jackson’s Food Store and Gas Station  UNR heating oil underground tanks  Private heating oil underground tanks  The regional aquifer in Truckee Meadows

45 Mitigation Below are mitigation measures the RTC will implement to address the on-site and off-site concerns:

 To minimize construction impacts from the Project, the construction contractor will prepare an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) that will include the management of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Prior to disturbing any buildings for demolition, a materials survey of those buildings will be conducted to identify/confirm the locations and quantities of any hazardous or regulated materials. This will require appropriately certified and licensed consultants and contractors (e.g., State of Nevada and/or Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act [AHERA] certified, and State of Nevada licensed).  If additional Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are conducted for any subsequent property acquisition, they will be performed by a Nevada Certified Environmental Manager (CEM). Any surplus soils that are planned for off-haul from the Project should be chemically profiled in accordance with state and preferred disposal facility requirements under the oversight of a Nevada CEM. Future hazardous materials survey results will be used to develop the portions of the EPP relating to hazardous or regulated materials waste management, transport, and disposal. Wastes generated at the Project site will need to be analyzed in accordance with applicable EPA and State of Nevada methods and criteria prior to disturbance or disposal to determine handling and disposal options. The EPP will identify the appropriately licensed hazardous materials contractors and CEM that would be utilized to plan, permit, remove, and dispose of any subsurface USTs or petroleum-impacted soils/materials that might be discovered during site demolition and/or grading operations.  The Project proponent will need to apply for an EPA generator identification number to be used for tracking any hazardous wastes generated and disposed of from the Project site. Transporters and disposal sites will be required to have valid permits held by the owners/operators, expected to be already in place, for these transport services and disposal facilities.  Local, state, and federal programs for the management of hazardous materials/hazardous wastes and emergency response under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) will be adequate to address any operational impacts if they occur. In addition, United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations for the transport of hazardous materials provide additional requirements to preclude the accidental release of hazardous materials on roadways. Environmental Justice and Community Disruption The data from the EA reveal that the study corridor contains a low-income environmental justice community. The total minority population in the Project corridor was not meaningfully higher than the total minority community in Washoe County, so the study corridor does not contain a minority environmental justice community. Anticipated impacts of the Project include the removal of five businesses and two residential apartment buildings (which will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E), as well as intermittent parking losses within the corridor. However, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements— along with other facility improvements—will enhance connectivity and cohesion within the area. The improved transit and pedestrian connectivity will bridge the I-80 divide that isolates neighborhoods in the University District from the rest of the community. The roadway and intersection improvements along with expanded RAPID bus service will enhance access to community centers, parks, churches, and

46 other resources by providing safer connections for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Any community disruptions caused by this Project would be short term due to Project construction. The Project will not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects to the environmental justice community. It will provide equal access to the benefits of improved availability of transit and a safer pedestrian and bicycle environment to the low-income and minority populations in the surrounding community. Parkland and Recreational Areas All parks and recreational areas are located outside of the study area; therefore, construction of the Project will not result in physical changes to the existing parks or recreational areas, nor result in a change of use. Safe access to the parks and recreational areas will continue as it is today. Wetlands Based on a review of aerial photography and the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (May 25, 2016), the Project study area contains a portion of a palustrine emergent wetland. The wetland is located within the Rancho San Rafael Regional Park, approximately 400 feet west of the North Virginia Street section. Localized drainage will be modified to accommodate the Project features; however, the ultimate location of stormwater discharge will not change, and no aspect of the Project will permanently or temporarily impact any wetlands. There would be no adverse effect to wetlands from the Project, and no coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be necessary. No Clean Water Act Section 404 permit will be required. Floodplains According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), no mapped floodplains occur within the Project study area, and the Project avoids new development or fill material within all mapped floodplains during construction or operation of the Project. Therefore, there would be no adverse effect to floodplains from the Project. The City of Reno will oversee and approve the drainage improvements during final design to ensure there are no floodplain impacts. Water Quality, Navigable Waterways, and Coastal Zones Based on a review of the USFWS National Wetland Inventory and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), the Project study area contains surface water features, including Manzanita Lake, canals/ditches, and an ephemeral stream. None of the surface waters are considered a navigable waterway by the USACE Sacramento District, but they may be deemed jurisdictional waters of the U.S. because they are tributaries to a navigable waterway. The Project involves transit and multimodal improvements within the existing Virginia Street corridor. No alterations or new direct connections to any surface waters will occur, and the RTC will ensure that the Project will comply with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) program and the City of Reno requirements for the protection of water quality. Therefore, there would be no adverse effect to water quality, navigable waterways, or coastal zones from the Project. Federal Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Other Special-Status Species No critical habitat for any federal-listed species occurs within the Project area. Additionally, a review of habitat characteristics and range for federal-listed species found that no suitable habitat for any federal- listed species occurs within the Project area. Therefore, based on lack of suitable habitat and the Project area occurring in an urbanized environment, the Project will have no effect on federal-listed species.

47 Of the five Nevada Special-Status Species that may occur in the Project area, the spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) have habitats that could potentially occur in the Project area. The Project could require the removal of approximately 50 trees, including two cottonwoods and 48 small to medium-sized ornamental trees. Removal of the trees could limit—but not eliminate—the ability of birds to nest in trees along the Virginia Street corridor; however, suitable nesting habitat for birds exists adjacent to the corridor. To avoid and minimize potential impacts to protected birds, as well as special-status bats, RTC will implement the following mitigation measures: 1. A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys for birds and bats in the vicinity (minimum of 100 feet surrounding the work area, where possible) of the Project site no more than one week prior to the commencement of Project activities. Avoidance measures will be implemented and confirmed with NDOW and/or the USFWS, as necessary, before construction begins if the results of the surveys are positive. Avoidance measures could include, but are not limited to, postponement of the Project schedule and/or designation of exclusion areas where no construction activities, including tree trimming or removal, can occur until nesting birds fledge or roosting bats are relocated. 2. Tree removal will be conducted during a time when birds and bats are less active and less likely to be in the area nesting and/or breeding. November through February is a suitable timeframe for avoiding conflicts with birds and bats. Tree removal may commence only after a qualified biologist has completed pre-construction surveys as outlined in Measure #1 above.

Energy The Project will lead to increased direct energy usage compared to the existing conditions. However, the increase is not significant when compared to the future projections of the No-Build Alternative. The increased direct energy usage for the No-Build Alternative and the Project compared to the existing conditions is primarily caused by regional population and employment growth and the associated planned land use changes. Impacts considered on a regional scale show that the Project improvements would have very slight beneficial impacts on regional energy consumption when compared to the No-Build Alternative. Based on this analysis, the Project is not anticipated to result in major changes to energy consumption. Mitigation To offset some of the energy consumption resulting from construction and operation of the Project, energy conservation measures will be implemented. Measures to conserve energy include:

 Limit idling of construction equipment  Locate construction staging areas close to work sites, while situating them as far away as possible from residential uses  Encourage use of cleaner and more fuel-efficient construction vehicles (for example, low-sulfur fuel, biodiesel, or hybrid technologies)  Encourage the use of alternative fuels and asphalt binders  Implement traffic management schemes that minimize delays and idling

48  Implement energy conservation measures, such as using solar panels and LED lighting at new and upgraded RAPID stations to improve energy efficiency at stations. Construction Construction activities can disrupt vehicle and pedestrian access at different locations and times throughout the duration of the Project. Dust, noise, and temporary detours will affect locations as construction occurs along the corridor, but no single location is expected to be disturbed for the entire duration of construction. The potential impacts are described in Table 6, below, along with planned mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. To inform the public about construction, the RTC will provide outreach programs and planning prior to construction that will be used to communicate with residents, business owners, and others about the details of the Project phasing and schedule. These efforts will enable businesses to better understand and prepare for the construction activities and access changes that may affect their operations. Similar outreach efforts will be coordinated with the University of Nevada for the benefit of students and faculty when construction occurs on North Virginia Street. During construction, the contractor will be required to provide vehicle and pedestrian access along the corridor, subject to the approval of the RTC. Special provisions will be included in the contract documents for the Project that establish the requirements that the contractor will be held to throughout construction. Some of those provisions include traffic control, access, notifications, construction hours, and public outreach. Efforts will be made to minimize the inconvenience to residents and business owners. During construction, the contractor will be required at all times to provide access through the construction zone for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles as necessary to reach their destination with a minimum of delay.

Section 4(f) Evaluation Regarding park and recreation resources, the Project will not result in the permanent incorporation of a park (or any part thereof) into a transportation project. Nor will the Project require the temporary occupancy of any park land. Finally, given their physical separation, the Project will not have a constructive impact that could impair the current or planned use of a Section 4(f) property. Regarding historical resources, the FTA has determined that the Project will have no adverse effect on properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Regarding the use of a Section 4(f) property, the Project will not result in the significant incorporation of an NRHP listed or eligible resource into a transportation project, nor will any NRHP listed or eligible resource be occupied on a temporary basis. Analysis of potential impacts associated with partial-parcel acquisitions, permanent easements, and temporary construction easements reveals that improvements are limited in scale and will result in the land being used in the same or a similar manner as before. In every case, the scope of the action is the minimum required to achieve the Project goal. Project-related activities (including acquisitions and easements) will not substantially impair features or attributes that contribute to the eligibility of a listed or eligible NRHP property. Nor will Project-related activities result in a change in the nature of use associated with a Section 4(f) property. As a result, the Project will not prompt a constructive use of an NRHP listed or eligible property. In light of the Section 106 determination of no adverse effect and considerations listed above, the Project will have a de minimis impact on Section 4(f) historic resources.

49 Environmental Mitigation Measures to Minimize Potential Impacts For the Project, the RTC has made its best efforts to avoid impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, or it has attempted to minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and implementation. However, since avoidance or minimization were not always feasible, the mitigation measures in Table 7 and Table 8, below, will be implemented.

Table 7. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Planning, Design, and Operations

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category North Virginia Street Intersections:  Improve signal retiming  LOS E (72.8 seconds) at 8th at 8th Street. Chapter 3, Street would exceed RTC-  At 9th Street, modify the Section 3.4, 1 Traffic adopted LOS standards. lane configuration, signal Traffic and  Excessive queues would heads, and re-optimize Parking occur at the Virginia Street signal timing. and 9th Street intersection. North and South Virginia  Net loss of 37 on-street Street: parking spaces along North Chapter 3,  Loss of spaces is offset Virginia Street. Section 3.4, 2 Parking by available comparable  Net loss of three on-street Traffic and parking on side streets parking spaces along South Parking and many off-street Virginia Street. parking facilities. New visual elements will be Implement specific design Chapter 3, introduced into the streetscape considerations that would not Historic Section 3.5, 3 that could diminish the integrity diminish the integrity of the Resources Historic of listed and eligible properties listed or eligible properties Resources for the NRHP. for the NRHP. Permanent full property Comply with the Uniform acquisitions Chapter 3, Relocation Assistance and Acquisitions Section 3.7, North Virginia Street: Real Property Acquisition 4 and Acquisitions  5 full parcels Policies Act of 1970, as Relocations and amended, and FTA Circular South Virginia Street: Relocations  1 full parcel 5010.1E.  Comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Partial property acquisitions Property Acquisition Chapter 3, Acquisitions North Virginia Street: Policies Act of 1970, as Section 3.7, 5 and  1 parcel amended, and FTA Acquisitions Relocations South Virginia Street: Circular 5010.1E. and All reasonable Relocations  2 parcels  opportunities to minimize acquisition of properties will be taken

50 Table 7. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Planning, Design, and Operations

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category during final design.  Comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Permanent easements and Real Property North Virginia Street: Acquisition Policies Act Chapter 3, Acquisitions  12 permanent easements on of 1970, as amended, and Section 3.7, 6 and six parcels FTA Circular 5010.1E. Acquisitions Relocations South Virginia Street:  All reasonable and opportunities to minimize Relocations  60 permanent easements on acquisition of properties 50 parcels will be taken during final design.

51 Table 7. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Planning, Design, and Operations

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category  The contractor will prepare an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).  Certified and licensed contractors will conduct a materials survey prior to disturbing buildings for demolition. On-site and off-site hazardous  If additional properties Chapter 3, materials concerns have been will be acquired, a Phase Hazardous Section 3.8, 7 identified for properties that 1 ESA will be prepared Materials Hazardous could be acquired for the by a Nevada CEM. Materials Project.  Before surplus soils are hauled from the property, they will be chemically profiled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with requirements of a Nevada CEM, as well as applicable federal requirements.

Permanent property acquisitions Comply with the Uniform Chapter 3, Environmen 5 full parcels acquisitions: Relocation Assistance and Section 3.9, tal Justice  7 businesses, including 2 Real Property Acquisition Environmental 8 and motels and 2 apartments (21 Policies Act of 1970, as Justice and Community amended, and FTA Circular Community Disruption units) 2 partial parcel acquisitions 5010.1E. Disruption North Virginia Street and South Virginia Street:  No mitigation measures are required because the  Net loss of 37 on-street Chapter 3, Environmen impacts are considered parking spaces along North Section 3.9, tal Justice minor, and because the Virginia Street. Environmental 9 and City of Reno's Complete  Net loss of three on-street Justice and Community parking spaces along South Streets program Community Disruption Virginia Street. anticipated fewer on- Disruption street parking spaces. Parking needs will be reduced as a result of increased transit ridership

52 Table 7. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Planning, Design, and Operations

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category and increased bicycle transportation.  RTC will set a performance period to assure timely completion of construction. Chapter 3, Environmen  The contractor will notify Section 3.9, tal Justice Temporary inconveniences to the public of construction Environmental 10 and local businesses and hours and duration. Justice and Community communities.  Business access signs Community Disruption will be installed adjacent Disruption to driveways.  Media outlets will be used for public construction updates. Chapter 3, Water The Project will comply with Section 3.13, Quality, the MS4 program and the The Project will discharge runoff Water Quality, Navigable City of Reno requirements for 11 to the City of Reno’s storm Navigable Waterways, the protection of water sewer system. Waterways, and Coastal quality. and Coastal Zones Zones  Conduct preconstruction surveys for birds and bats in the Project area and, if found to be present, implement avoidance Federal Chapter 3, Removal of approximately 50 measures after reporting Threatened, Section 3.14, trees could potentially impact survey results to NDOW. Endangered, Federal nesting sites for 23 birds that are  Conduct tree removal Candidate, Threatened, 12 protected by the Migratory Bird during a time (November and Other Endangered, Treaty Act (MBTA) and impact through February) when Special- Candidate, and roosting sites for the spotted bat Status birds and bats are less Other Special- and the silver-haired bat. Species active and less likely to Status Species be in the area and/or nesting or breeding. This activity will be documented by a qualified biologist.

53 Table 7. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Planning, Design, and Operations

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category Implement energy conservation measures where Chapter 3, New station facilities could appropriate, such as energy- 13 Energy Section 3.15, increase energy usage. efficient electrical system Energy specifications and lighting equipment. 30 easements on NRHP listed or Implement specific design eligible buildings or structures Chapter 4, considerations that limit the could experience an indirect Section 4(f)/ 14 Section 4(f) size of the station and make it effect from the introduction of Section 6(f) architecturally compatible new visual elements adjacent to Evaluation with the area. the properties.

54 Table 8. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Construction

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category  Temporary increases in air pollutant emissions may occur from construction activities in the form of fugitive dust. Use fugitive dust control  Construction activities Chapter 3, measures to minimize 1 Air Quality may generate a temporary Section 3.2, Air particulate matter emissions increase in MSAT Quality during construction. emissions from construction equipment and related vehicles, such as delivery and vendor trucks. Contractor will:  Prepare a detailed traffic control plan and Short-term traffic operations distribute plan to public disrupted during construction agencies and emergency including: services. Chapter 3,  Road closures  Maintain through traffic. Section 3.4, 2 Traffic  Lane restrictions  Prepare a truck route and Traffic and  Detours storage area plan. Parking  Longer wait times  Maintain access to  Limited street parking properties adjacent to the construction zone.  Maintain safe pedestrian access. Implement RTC’s proposed monitoring program, discovery procedures, and Chapter 3, During construction activities, Archaeological burial procedures to eliminate Section 3.5, 3 archaeological resources Resources potential effects to Historic could be discovered. archaeological resources Resources during construction of the Project. Limit loud construction- Chapter 3, Temporary increase in Noise and related activities in residential Section 3.6, 4 construction-related noise Vibration areas to regular daytime Noise and levels. hours. Vibration

55 Table 8. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Construction

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category  Comply with the Temporary construction Uniform Relocation easements Assistance and Real North Virginia Street: Property Acquisition Chapter 3,  20 temporary Policies Act of 1970, as Section 3.7, Acquisitions construction easements amended, and FTA 5 Acquisitions and Relocations on 13 parcels Circular 5010.1E. and  All reasonable South Virginia Street: Relocations opportunities to  155 temporary minimize acquisition of construction easements on properties will be taken 127 parcels during final design. Wastes generated at the Project site will be analyzed in accordance with applicable EPA and State of Nevada Chapter 3, methods and criteria prior to Hazardous Construction could generate Section 3.8, 6 disturbance or disposal to Materials hazardous wastes. Hazardous determine handling and Materials disposal options. Transport of hazardous materials will occur consistent with USDOT regulations.  The contractor will be required to minimize inconvenience to businesses and the public.  A detailed staging plan will be prepared by the contractor.  RTC will set a Chapter 3, Environmental Temporary inconvenience to performance period to Section 3.9, Justice and local businesses and Environmental 7 assure timely completion Community communities during Justice and of construction. Disruption construction. Community  The contractor will notify Disruption the public of construction hours and duration.  Business access signs will be installed adjacent to driveways.  Media outlets will be used for public construction updates. 8 Energy Temporary increase in  Limit idling of Chapter 3,

56 Table 8. Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Construction

Mitigation Mitigation Potential Impact Mitigation Commitment EA Source # Category indirect energy usage for construction equipment. Section 3.15, construction activities.  Locate construction Energy staging areas close to work sites, while situating them as far as possible from residential uses.  Encourage use of cleaner and more fuel-efficient construction vehicles (for example, low sulfur fuel, biodiesel, or hybrid).  Encourage the use of alternative fuels and asphalt binders.  Implement traffic management schemes that minimize delays and idling.

In addition to the above mitigation commitments, the contractor also will perform the following activities:

 Acquire all necessary permits prior to construction. It will be the contractor’s responsibility to comply with all applicable city, county, state, and federal laws, regulations, and codes.  Provide day-to-day operation control of activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for erosion control due to storm water and construction-related runoff from construction sites. This includes implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and constructing and maintaining all temporary and/or permanent sediment control measures for the duration of construction activities.  Provide cleanup and fugitive dust control measures throughout all phases of construction. The site will be maintained in a neat and safe manner and not present a nuisance or hazard to the public. The contractor will keep the work site clean and free from rubbish and debris and will abate dust nuisance by covering or treating disturbed areas with dust suppression techniques, cleaning, sweeping, and sprinkling water on exposed surfaces (staging areas, soil piles, graded areas), covering loaded trucks, or other means, as necessary. All construction procedures will conform to the Washoe County District Health Department Air Quality Management Division.  Where night operations are permitted, submit a night lighting system plan that includes the light types, locations, and the manner in which the lights will be moved. Floodlights will be used to illuminate the work area but will not produce a disabling glare condition for approaching road users. Vehicle lights or incandescent lights will not be used. Written notification will be provided to adjacent residents and property owners prior to night operations.

57 Conclusion: Environmental Determinations and Findings National Environmental Policy Act Finding FTA served as the lead agency for the Project under NEPA. FTA reviewed the final version of the EA and approved it for public circulation in June 2017. The EA found that the Project's construction and operation will have no significant impact on the human or natural environment that would not be mitigated. This finding applies to all applicable environmental elements, including air quality, land use, traffic and parking, historic resources, noise and vibration, acquisitions and relocations, hazardous materials, environmental justice and community disruption, parks and recreational areas, wetlands, floodplains, water quality, navigable waterways, federal and other special-status species, energy, and indirect and cumulative impacts. After carefully considering the analysis in the EA and the public comments and responses, FTA finds that the principal areas of public controversy have been addressed, and there are no major unresolved issues outstanding. This finding is based on the attached EA, coordination with local and federal agencies, public involvement, and applicable laws, executive orders, and regulations. The EA accurately and adequately discusses the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the Project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FTA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the EA. Environmental Finding The Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Environmental Assessment is incorporated by reference as part of this Finding of No Significant Impact. Based on the EA and its associated supporting documents, the Federal Transit Administration finds, pursuant to 23 CFR 771.121, that there are no significant impacts to the human and natural environment associated with the development and operation of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project.

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Review Comments and Responses Appendix B: Copy of Public Comment Letters

58 Appendix A Environmental Assessment Public Review Comments and Responses

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Review Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 1 1-1 Alicia Barber My comment concerns the RTC's proposed Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances acquisition of the five parcels on the east side of specify procedures for the identification, evaluation, and North Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th treatment of historic and potentially historic properties. Identified Street, as delineated in Section 3.7: Acquisitions properties were evaluated based on eligibility criteria established and Relocations of the Environmental Assessment. for the NRHP. Properties found to be eligible for listing on the I have no objection to those acquisitions or to the Register were afforded special consideration during Project demolition of the existing structures on those planning and implementation. parcels, so long as protections are put in place regarding the subsequent uses of the east side of As discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.5, Historic Resources, and those parcels and the fate of the historic properties Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Memorandum, in the located just to the east of them. EA, the NRHP properties that are considered to be eligible have been identified. These include the properties on the 800 block of Center Street.

1 1-2 Alicia Barber The RTC plan specifies that the full extent of these The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way parcels on North Virginia Street is not required by the acquisition activities until the environmental review process is RTC for the Preferred Alternative proposed complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 1 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

improvements. I would like to propose that the remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- remainder of these acquired parcels, the area not funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action utilized for RTC-related construction, be subject to a regarding use or disposition of the property will be guided by public discussion regarding their disposition and use. Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC will be required to address the disposition of excess property in the Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan (RAMP) prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

2 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 1 1-3 Alicia Barber On their east side, these parcels immediately abut Comment noted. The parcels referred to, those fronting Center six historic Victorian houses located on the west Street between 8th Street and 9th Street, will not be impacted side of North Center Street between 8th Street and as a result of this Project. This determination of no adverse 9th Street. Their addresses are 815, 821, 829, effect on historic properties was affirmed by the Nevada 847, and 895 North Center Street. Descriptions SHPO. For more information about the determination of effect, and photos of these houses may be viewed on the please see Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Reno Historical digital tour of the Historic Memorandum, in the EA. University Gateway: http://renohistorical.org/tours/show/9.

All six houses have been identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places through a recent City of Reno-commissioned survey available from Claudia Hanson, City of Reno Planning Manager. Moreover, one of these houses, the Mary Sherman House at 847 N. Center Street, is already listed on the City of Reno historic register and the Nevada State Register of Historic Places. The City of Reno's University of Nevada Regional Center Plan indicates that the City's priority regarding these houses, and the other historic houses in the so-called "UNR Gateway District" is to preserve them in place through adaptive reuse if necessary, resorting to relocation only as an alternative to demolition.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 3 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 1 1-4 Alicia Barber The University of Nevada, Reno has already No historic properties will be impacted as part of this Project. expressed interest in building high density new Any actions related to the Center Street properties would not construction in the Gateway District and replacing be conducted by RTC and would be addressed through a these historic houses with a new College of separate process. Business Building. It may be possible for the University to achieve the square footage they require by building on vacant portions of the RTC- acquired parcels, thereby allowing the historic houses of North Center Street to remain in place. I would very much encourage discussions along these lines, and any other discussions that would result in preservation IN PLACE of the historic portions of the Center Street houses (there have been non-historic additions to the west sides of many of these houses over time that could be removed to provide more space for new construction). Permitting these houses to remain in place would preserve one of the City of Reno's most significant and unique historic landscapes dating to the late 19th century.

4 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 1 1-5 Alicia Barber The RTC can serve as a responsible public The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way steward by initiating a public dialogue about the acquisition activities until the environmental review process is future disposition and use of the RTC-acquired complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential parcels that involves the City of Reno's Historical remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- Resources Commission (charged with protection of funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action the city register-listed Mary Sherman House); the regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided Nevada State Historic Preservation Office; the by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, University of Nevada, Reno; and City of Reno Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations government; as well as relevant community (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). stakeholders including the Historic Reno These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses Preservation Society. for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Thank you so much for soliciting comments Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate regarding the Environmental Assessment. market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 5 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 2 2-1 Jenny Brekhus To Whom It May Concern: The Preferred Alternative includes right-of-way acquisition on the east side of the street between 8th Street and 9th Street to accommodate the design elements of the Preferred These comments are provided in response to the Alternative at this location. The segment of Virginia Street Virginia Street Rapid Extension Environmental between 8th Street and 9th Street currently has four-foot-wide Assessment (EA) and are in addition to and sidewalks on both sides of the street with buildings located at elaborate upon those I offered verbally at the June the back of the sidewalk in many locations and numerous ADA 22 public hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to deficiencies. This segment would be widened to provide input on this important project that accommodate the design elements of the Preferred straddles an area that I represent on the Reno City Alternative, including bicycle lanes, sidewalks compliant with Council. the ADA, street trees, a southbound bus-only lane, northbound bus turnout/queue jump lane, two northbound and Property Taking one southbound general-purpose travel lanes, northbound and The project description involves a property taking southbound RAPID stations, and a center median with left-turn of the eastern N. Virginia Street half block between pocket. The Preferred Alternative avoids property acquisitions Eighth and Ninth Streets and is explained as on the west side of the street due to the presence of structures necessary for the construction of a multi-modal that are deemed to be potentially eligible for the National transportation hub for this area. Inadequate detail Register of Historic Places. is provided for me to understand the impact of this project component. As example, the property to be Due to the proximity of buildings to the property line, taken is shown as a narrow western strip of the half construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in the block. It is thus, unclear why the entire half block is acquisition of these buildings and relocation of businesses or needed for acquisition. University of Nevada, Reno tenants, as eligible, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation (UNR) officials have in the past, distributed Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, illustrated renderings of future campus plans that as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. The impairment of depict university buildings on this property. It is the use of the remaining property requires the Project to unclear upon review of the EA, if there are plans by acquire the full property rather than just a portion of it. See RTC Washoe or other entities, to dispose the Figure 2 of the Virginia Street RAPID Extension Project unused portions of the block for UNR purposes. Finding of No Significant Impact. The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way acquisition activities until the environmental review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses

6 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 7 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 2 2-2 Jenny Brekhus The EA discusses that federal relocation rules The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way apply to property acquisition but detail is lacking to acquisition activities until the environmental review process is describe the disposition of property that is acquired complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential but not needed for the project. As UNR also owns remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- the half block to the west upon which the funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action historically significant N. Center Street structures regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided front, I am inquiring if a post-project disposition by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, would position UNR as previously contemplated, to Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations demolish the historic structures. The EA identifies (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). the significance of these structures. I believe that a These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses full vetting of the impacts to this project should for the property, including, but not limited to, other analyze potential property disposition scenarios transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA and if any of the scenarios would imperil Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate identifiable historic resources, a fuller vetting of market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property impacts may be necessitated through the exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of environmental review process. allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

The Preferred Alternative avoids property acquisitions on the west side of the street. The historic properties fronting North Center Street between 8th Street and 9th Street will not be impacted as part of this Project. This determination of no adverse effect on historic properties was affirmed by the Nevada SHPO. For more information about historic properties and the analysis of potential affects to them as a result of this Project, please see Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Memorandum, in the EA. Any impacts to these properties in the future would be the result of actions not included, and therefore not analyzed, as part of this Project.

8 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Due to the proximity of buildings to the property line, construction of the Preferred Alternative would result in the acquisition of these buildings and relocation of businesses or tenants, as eligible, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. The impairment of the use of the remaining property requires the Project to acquire the full property rather than just a portion of it.

RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA process. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts, based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 9 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 2 2-3 Jenny Brekhus Social Justice and Impact upon Persons of Low to The Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA Moderate Income acknowledges the low-income environmental justice In a similar vein, I am concerned about the communities located along the corridor. As part of this displacement of low to moderate income evaluation, special consideration was given to the Project's individuals as a result of the N. Virginia Street impacts to these communities, including those impacted by property acquisition and disposition. It does not property acquisitions. The findings of this analysis concluded appear that any mitigating measures other than that there is sufficient affordable housing along the Virginia routinely applicable federal relocation regulations Street corridor to accommodate displaced households. are proposed. As Reno is experiencing rental Displaced residents from 21 apartment units and an estimated housing price escalation and this trend impacts 58 motel units will be relocated, as eligible. most significantly persons of low to moderate income means, I believe that a more detailed Any right-of-way acquisition will comply with the Uniform analysis of the impact of losing a portion of this Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies segment of the housing stock is needed. Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. Before Additionally, if the N. Virginia Street block is the property is acquired, RTC is required to prepare a disposed to UNR and that land is aggregated with Relocation Plan that will address the relocation of all the N. Center Street land and the historic structures displacements on the Project for both residential and are razed, an unidentified number of individuals nonresidential properties. The purpose of the Relocation Plan residing in those historic structures might also be is to recognize the problems associated with the displacement displaced.The EA does not address displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and non-profit of individuals residing in the N. Center Street organizations and develop solutions to minimize the adverse properties or the loss of that housing stock. impacts of displacement.

One aspect of the Relocation Plan involves a comparison of needs with available inventory. Projects requiring displacement of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and/or low-income tenants will require additional assistance in finding replacement housing. The Relocation Plan will seek to identify an available replacement dwelling for every displaced residential occupant (tenant-occupant or owner-occupant). If there is an apparent shortage of housing, the plan will indicate how the agency will “make available” such housing under the last resort housing provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E.

10 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Properties not acquired as a direct result of this Project are not eligible for relocation assistance and are, therefore, not discussed in the EA. This Project is located on Virginia Street and contains no Project elements or impacts on the Center Street properties described.

To help minimize potential impacts to environmental justice communities affected by the Project, specific mitigation actions have been identified in Appendix I, Environmental Justice and Community Disruption Technical Memorandum, in the EA.

Furthermore, the City of Reno recognizes that, like many cities throughout the U.S., housing prices are increasing. The City has already set goals to maintain or increase the share of affordable housing and it is striving to expand and preserve affordable and mixed-income housing opportunities. The Virginia Street corridor has been identified as a transit-oriented corridor by the City. This Project, through the implementation of improved bus RAPID service, will support the development of Virginia Street as a mixed-income, multi-use corridor and is consistent with the City's existing goals to support affordable housing and mixed-income housing opportunities.

Additionally, the RTC has initiated an Affordable Housing Study to identify strategies the RTC can undertake to support the development of affordable housing near transit. This study will focus primarily on BRT station areas and other high- frequency, high-ridership routes. It will include market analysis, station area planning, and extensive coordination with both public and private stakeholders interested in affordable housing.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 11 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 2 2-4 Jenny Brekhus Fiscal Constraints and American with Disabilities The limits of the Project are in accordance with the Project's Act stated purpose and need. As stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, I am not well versed on the NEPA process and do Purpose of the Project, of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID not wish to inject concerns not relevant to the Transit Extension Project EA, the purpose of this Project is to, federal review process. However, I have grown “… increase transit ridership and connectivity, enhance increasingly concerned that this project is pedestrian safety, and improve accessibility to transit in the unusually “bundled”. It involves northern and Virginia Street corridor.” To best achieve this purpose, it was southern geographic segments and excludes determined that, in addition to improving accessibility to the Reno’s downtown that is situated between the two existing RAPID service, the service should be extended from project segments. I am concerned that in a fiscally its current terminus (the 4th STREET STATION) to the constrained environment, that an overly elaborate segment of the corridor that includes the University of Nevada, project may not be feasible in today’s uncertain Reno. Because there are no physical changes being proposed federal funding climate. in the Downtown District that would be necessary to meet the Project’s purpose and need, the evaluations focused on the South Virginia Street and North Virginia Street segments of the Project. The Project is programmed for construction with a combination of local and federal funds.

12 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 2 2-5 Jenny Brekhus The portion of the corridor that I represent is Comment noted. The purpose and need statement for this woefully non-compliant to American with Project identifies improving accessibility to transit service and Disabilities Act sidewalk conditions. In fact, a local improving pedestrian safety, and the construction of accessible person of physical disability who transports by sidewalks for use by people of all ages and abilities is a core wheelchair has complained about the conditions to component. The City of Reno and the RTC of Washoe County the City of Reno. I understand that he accepted are committed to meeting ADA requirements and improving temporal improvements that while not meeting access and mobility for all people using the Virginia Street compliance, are an improvement to the existing corridor. To this end, this Project includes improvements to conditions as he understood the corridor project is pedestrian facilities to make them compliant with ADA planned. I have concern that the “bundled” project accessibility standards. This Project has been identified by will linger in competition for funding and that full RTC as their top federal and local funding priority for FY 2018- ADA compliance will as well. RTC Washoe 2019. Including the UNR and Midtown sections of the Project representatives have assured me during this in a single NEPA document does not impact the construction planning process that should the project encounter schedule. delayed programming that the southern project will proceed in the 2019 construction season with the use of local resources. While these comments may not be relevant to the EA hearing process, I felt it important to memorialize these concerns and understanding herein.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the EA. I look forward to reviewing the final document as it evolves through the public input process.

Jenny Brekhus, Reno City Council Member for Ward 1

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 13 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 3 3-1 Randy Collins Thank you for the opportunity to address the latest Comment noted. Specific responses to each question are developments in this ongoing project. provided below.

In reviewing the VIRGINIA STREET ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, the I would like to address several concerns. Chiefly there seem to be some deficiencies in the overall project description as it relates to the the acquisition of the Bus Hub (multimodal?) property adjacent to Center street, Pedestrian safety in terms of the design and posted speeds in throughout the corridor, and connectivity of bicycle lanes from the north end through to the southern portion of Virginia street. 3 3-2 Randy Collins The new bus hub appears to only need a certain The properties along North Virginia Street between 8th Street amount of space however doesn't describe the and 9th Street that would be acquired under the Preferred surrounding neighborhood's historical houses. Alternative were determined not to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. No historic properties surrounding the transit station will be impacted as part of this Project; therefore, no detailed discussion about the adjacent historic properties is included in the EA. For more information about historic resources in the corridor and associated determinations, please see Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Memorandum, in the EA. 3 3-3 Randy Collins Pedestrian safety is a key issue that Reno is facing Multiple traffic-calming and pedestrian-safety improvements and it is imperative that the design give more than are included as part of this Project. These include, but are not lip service to designing the roadways to slow down limited to, the addition of two roundabouts, wider sidewalks, the actual speeds of automobile traffic. improved crosswalks, improved pedestrian lighting, bulbouts, Suggestions include “flashing pedestrian lights,” the repurposing of general-purpose travel lanes, the addition of bulbouts, and posted speeds of ______. medians, and the potential for consolidated driveway access. All of these features will serve to encourage drivers to travel at the posted speed limit (25 miles per hour) and to enhance overall pedestrian safety throughout the corridor.

14 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 3 3-4 Randy Collins In October of 2015 at a Reno City Council meeting The purpose of this Project is to increase transit ridership and the RTC specifically said they would be working on connectivity, enhance pedestrian safety, and improve bicycle lane connectivity between the north and accessibility to transit in the Virginia Street corridor. This EA south ends of this corridor. As of yet there appears only examines improvements to the Virginia Street corridor to be no consideration of this promise within the and, therefore, does not provide any recommendations about EA. I would like to propose that both Sierra and adjacent streets. As part of this Project, proposed new bicycle Center Streets, which run parallel to the Virginia infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, the installation of Street corridor, include bicycle lanes and/or a dedicated bicycle lanes, shared bicycle and transit lanes, and multidirectional “cycletrack” to link the UNR, general-purpose lanes with sharrows. All these features, along Downtown, and Midtown areas. The Sierra Street with the other amenities that will provide for natural vehicle bicycle infrastructure should feed into the Forest St. traffic calming along the corridor, will improve north-south cycletrack which is already in the Master Plan for bicycle connectivity along this corridor. For more information Reno. We would suggest including that stretch of on the proposed bicycle infrastructure improvements, please infrastructure in this project as other adjacent see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, Multimodal Access to Transit streets are already being modified for this corridor Stops. to improve flow of traffic into this neighborhood. I brought up in 2016 meetings with RTC members As separate projects, RTC has programmed funding for the availability of city grants for alternate bicycle facilities on Center Street, Sierra Street, and Forest transportation. Were these grants persued [sic]? Street in the FY 2018-2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Bicycle lanes on Evans Avenue, a All of these suggestions are meant to mitigate safety parallel street east of Virginia Street, were constructed in 2018. concerns and to preserve the unique potential of this project to enhance the quality of life in Reno's urban core.

Respectfully submitted, Randy Collins

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 15 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 4 4-1 George Del I have one concern—please let me know how the Providing RAPID service along North Virginia Street will Carlo preferred construction alternative will improve and improve transit travel options for people going to and from not impede the traffic going to special events at events at UNR. Where RAPID service exists along Virginia UNR? Street today, there is a 22-percent transit mode share. This is three times greater than the existing transit mode share split along North Virginia Street. It is expected that extending RAPID service to UNR will increase transit mode share to be similar to that found on South Virginia Street. Additionally, the Project will add bicycle lanes, which will provide additional travel options for people going to UNR. These improvements and additions will better facilitate alternate travel modes, thus providing more travel options for people on a day-to-day basis, as well as when going to and from events at UNR. 5 5-1 ESRNEV3, LLC ESRNEV3, LLC's comments to the Environmental Comment noted. See responses to Comment 12. c/o Robertson, Assessment were delivered by hand to RTC, Johnson, Miller mailed and sent via e-mail because they were too & Williamson lengthy to place in this comment box.

16 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 6 6-1 Jeffrey Loftin To Ms Paukowits, Mr. Smith, Ms. Lira-Martinez, The Preferred Alternative includes right-of-way acquisition on and Ms. Hernandez of the FTA region 9, the east side of the street between 8th Street and 9th Street to accommodate design elements of the Preferred Alternative at An existing RTC (Washoe County, NV) bus stop is this location. The segment of Virginia Street between 8th pictured below (blue polygon) adjacent to an open Street and 9th Street currently has four-foot-wide sidewalks on area. both sides of the street, with buildings located at the back of the sidewalk in many locations and numerous ADA

deficiencies. This segment would be widened to Rather than simply expanding the existing bus accommodate the design elements of the Preferred stop: Alternative, including bicycle lanes, sidewalks compliant with RTC Washoe is seeking federal funds to purchase the ADA standards, street trees, pedestrian lighting, a and demolish the entire half block to the south, southbound bus-only lane, northbound bus turnout/queue comprising seven buildings which house nine jump lane, two northbound and one southbound general- businesses and 80+ residential tenants (individuals purpose travel lanes, northbound and southbound RAPID and families) in order to add a multi-modal hub, stations, and a center median with left-turn pocket. one half-block to the south (see red polygon). The northbound station between 8th Street and 9th Street would have a bus turnout that would accommodate the RAPID, RTC fixed-route RIDE bus, RTC ACCESS paratransit, and UNR campus shuttle buses. The bus turnout transitions to a queue jump lane to allow transit vehicles to exit the station and maintain traffic operations. This station will have covered seating for transit customers at shelters for RAPID and regular fixed-route/UNR shuttle service. Due to an anticipated high volume of pedestrian activity, this station will include sufficient areas for walking both in front of and behind the transit station, providing ADA access. Bicycle parking and potential bicycle share parking also will be provided at this station.

Providing for all elements of the Preferred Alternative requires more right of way than is available on either block of northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 10th Street. Obtaining this space at the existing bus stop location north of 9th Street and constructing a RAPID station would create visual and other impacts to nearby Manzanita Hall, a contributing element to the UNR Historic District, and would not be consistent with existing planning documents, including both the City of Reno University of Nevada Regional Center Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 17 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. Therefore, the alternative that was presented to the public and selected as part of the Preferred Alternative is a new transit station and associated design elements on the block between 8th Street and 9th Street. For more information on why the location along northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street was selected over the location north of 9th Street, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 6 6-2 Jeffrey Loftin The cost of the taking of these lands is estimated at Property acquisitions and relocations for the entire Project are 18 million dollars. The cost of demolition would estimated to cost approximately $13.6 million. The Project require even more government funding. The dust, costs are shown in Table 1 of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID noise, air impacts, and vibration associated with Extension Project Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) demolishing these nine buildings (including and include the purchase of all properties needed, both partial asbestos and lead paint) is substantial. This and full acquisitions, throughout the corridor, as well as site proposal will have environmental, economic, social, mitigation for hazardous materials. and traffic impacts. During construction, best management practices will be used to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts from construction activities. Detailed mitigation commitments about construction impacts to specific resources can be found in Table 6: Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Construction, located in the FONSI.

18 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 6 6-3 Jeffrey Loftin In one-on-one conversations, RTC Washoe The proposed design elements of the Preferred Alternative engineers have said that the multi-modal hub could described above require more right of way than is available on be engineered to replace the existing stop, rather either block of northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street than requiring the taking of half a city block, the and 10th Street. Obtaining this space at the existing bus stop displacement of nine businesses, the displacement location north of 9th Street and constructing a RAPID station of 80+ resident families and individuals, and the potentially would create visual and other impacts to nearby demolition of nine buildings. Manzanita Hall, located in the UNR Historic District, and would not be consistent with existing planning documents, including The multi-modal hub design is shown requiring only both the City of Reno’s University of Nevada Regional Center some 20 ft in depth of take (easily position-able Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. adjacent to the current bus stop); the lots that RTC is proposing taking are approximately 140 ft in depth. Therefore, the alternative that was presented to the public and selected as part of the Preferred Alternative was a new transit Why would FTA fund the taking of 1.28 acres (nine station on the block between 8th Street and 9th Street. For businesses, 80+ residents) along with the more information on why the location along northbound environmental impacts of the taking, when the Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street was selected proposed multi-modal hub project requires only 0.022 over the location north of 9th Street, please see Chapter 2, acres and vacant land is available? Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

To provide sufficient space for this transit station and its proposed amenities, adjacent property will be acquired. Due to the proximity of buildings to the property line, these acquisitions will result in the removal of these buildings from the property and thus impair the use of the property. In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E, the impairment of the use of the remaining property requires the Project to acquire the full property rather than just a portion of it.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 19 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 6 6-4 Jeffrey Loftin We are inquiring as to whether the taking of these The Preferred Alternative includes acquisition of the properties lands will ultimately advance the plans of the local along North Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street university which has expressed an interest in as a result of the space required for the new transit station, expanding into this area. sidewalk improvements, and other design elements of the Preferred Alternative. The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way acquisition activities until the environmental review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA-funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

The Preferred Alternative is consistent with adopted land use and transportation plans in the region. Both the City of Reno’s University of Nevada Regional Center Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan include the extension of RAPID transit to UNR with a station between 8th Street and 9th Street.

20 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 6 6-5 Jeffrey Loftin The university also operates a college textbook store; Comment noted. As described above, eligible businesses and the only competing private discount textbook impacted by property acquisition would be relocated in store would be demolished as part of this proposal accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real (north-most structure, red polygon). Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. Comments received on the EA have Please contact me right away regarding the been documented and responded to in this section. questions that I have on this taking/project. 7 7-1 Jeffrey Loftin Please enter the following a public comment for the Comment noted. purpose of response to the environmental assessment:

My Name is Jeffrey Loftin. I operate Textbook Brokers, a college retail store at 10A E 9th Street, Reno, NV where my only customers are students of the University of Nevada Reno. We are a private business that sells and rents new and used college books to students.

A) We provide a low cost alternative to the nineteen thousand plus students of UNR, however this means that customers often purchase with us in lieu of purchasing from the Nevada owned bookstore. RTC is advancing what they are describing as a community preferred alternative where a multimodal hub is projected to be built between 8th and 9th Street on the east side of North Virginia Street in Reno, NV, across the street from the current UNR campus. There is already a RTC bus Stop less than 200 feet away on the same north-bound side of the street, Route7 Stop ID 339.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 21 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 7 7-2 Jeffrey Loftin B) If RTC proceeds with this plan, they will All acquisitions and relocations that are a result of this Project purchase, and demolish the building where will comply with all federal and state regulations, including the Textbook Brokers does business, and thereby Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition destroy Textbook Brokers UNR. We are a Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. tenant at 10A E 9th Street and we have a few Any discussion regarding acquisitions and relocation would essential questions as our business cannot be occur upon completion of the NEPA process. relocated--we have generated the goodwill of the student body by being positioned in the The following information is excerpted from Relocation: Your location most convenient to campus and to Rights and Benefits as a Displaced Person Under the Federal interstate 80 and by adhering to our company's Relocation Assistance Program. strict business plan and best practices with

regards to location and operations. A relocation counselor from the Agency will contact and

interview the displacee to find out the needs and replacement We have looked tirelessly and fruitlessly for site requirements and estimate the time needed to accomplish other physical locations from which to service the move. Relocation services and payments will be explained our UNR customers and none exist. The in accordance with the displacee’s eligibility. It is important to University may purchase properties very explain to the counselor any anticipated problems. During the quickly and above market rates, but there is no initial interview, the relocation counselor will ask many where else for Textbook Brokers to lease questions to determine the displacee’s financial ability to space and serve our community effectively. accomplish the move, including lease terms and other obligations.

22 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number The goal is to achieve a successful relocation back into the community. As described in the Relocation booklet, eligible business relocation services and reimbursements may include the following:  Actual, reasonable moving expenses and related moving expenses, such as personal property losses, as applicable  Related expenses, such as personal property losses, as applicable  Reasonable expenses incurred in searching for a replacement property not to exceed $2,500  Related eligible moving expenses that are actual, reasonable, and necessary: (1) Connection to available nearby utilities, (2) Professional services to determine a site’s suitability or (3) Impact fees or one-time assessment for utility usage  Re-establishment payment for expenses incurred in relocation and re-establishing the enterprise to a replacement site, not to exceed a $25,000  Fixed payment, as eligible, in lieu of actual moving expenses, personal property losses, searching expense, and re-establishment expenses, not to exceed $40,000. 7 7-3 Jeffrey Loftin Questions: Comment noted. 1. Is RTC aware that Textbook Brokers, as a tenant, simply is seeking some assurances that we will have the opportunity to continue to rent in this block at market rates?

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 23 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 7 7-4 Jeffrey Loftin 2. Will RTC provide opportunities for Textbook The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way Brokers to co-development and partner with RTC in acquisition activities until the environmental review process is this specific block after any taking or purchasing of complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential lands? remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

24 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 7 7-5 Jeffrey Loftin 3. Is RTC aware that by purchasing the block at 9th Any eligible owner or tenant of a property acquired as part of Street and Virginia, they will effectively present a this Project will be compensated and/or relocated to another multi-million dollar annual benefit to the state location, as applicable, in accordance with federal and state owned University of Nevada by removing the only law, including the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real private brick and mortar business which competes Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and with the textbook sales of that University? FTA Circular 5010.1E.

RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts, based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 7 7-6 Jeffrey Loftin 4. Will RTC please provide an alternative for The EA presents the No-Build Alternative, which would not community review that would not require the taking have any right-of-way impacts. An alternate location for the of the properties on the east side of Virginia transit station near 9th Street was evaluated during the between 8th Street and 9th Street? alternatives development process. This alternative would have placed the northbound transit station north of 9th Street. This alternative was eliminated because of its impacts to historically significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing local plans. An online survey was conducted as part of the outreach process. Results of the survey indicated that 82 percent of the more than 300 respondents supported the Preferred Alternative station location between 8th Street and 9th Street over the alternative that maintained the existing configuration at this location. For more information on alternatives developed and why alternatives were or were not carried forward in the project development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 7 7-7 Jeffrey Loftin We also have some concerns about the Comment noted. The No-Build Alternative presented in the EA relationship between RTC and their procurement of would not have any right-of-way impacts. The alternative to federal funds for this project, and the ways in which place the northbound transit station north of 9th Street was that may dovetail with UNR's masterplan as analyzed during the alternatives evaluation process and presented to the Reno City Council, of which eliminated because of its impacts to historically significant members are also RTC board members. resources and its lack of consistency with existing local plans. 1. RTC engineers have said in one on one Because this alternative was eliminated, no further analysis is discussions that a multi-modal hub could be required. For more information on alternatives developed and Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 25 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number engineered as an expansion of Route7 Stop why alternatives were or were not carried forward in the project 339, therefore as a response to this question development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, will RTC please show a simplistic rendering of Alternatives Development Process. the northbound portion of the multimodal hub being positioned on the Northeast corner of RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- Virginia and 9th Street? transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 7 7-8 Jeffrey Loftin 2. RTC engineers have explained that some Bus pullouts need to be designed to accommodate the full standards exisit for length of turnout required length of the transit vehicles ensuring no part of the vehicle for a multimodal hub where the rapid busses extends into travel lanes, plus the additional space needed for [sic] transit riders would exchange with UNR the vehicle to safely enter and exit the pullout. For the shuttle riders: according to these standards, northbound transit station between 8th Street and 9th Street, what is the minimum length of turnout that the pullout must accommodate the RTC RAPID bus, the RTC would be approvable? regular fixed-route RIDE bus, RTC ACCESS paratransit, and the UNR shuttle, and provide lane length at the traffic signal to accommodate a transit queue jump. To provide space for all these features, it was determined that the entire length of the block will be needed. 7 7-9 Jeffrey Loftin 3. RTC personnel have indicated in renderings The alternative to place the northbound transit station north of that there the entire space between 8th and 9th 9th Street was analyzed during the alternatives evaluation is exactly enough to allow the positioning of a process and eliminated because of its impacts to historically multimodal hub on the east side of Virginia significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing street between 8th (North) and 9th, therefore local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further will RTC please indicate on a drawing exactly analysis is required. For more information on alternatives where this same layout would end if the developed and why alternatives were or were not carried multimodal hub was shown on the north east forward in the project development process, please see corner of Virginia and Ninth Street? Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 7 7-10 Jeffrey Loftin 4. University of Nevada Reno spokespeople have The alternative to place the northbound transit station north of spoken extensively in Reno City Council 9th Street was analyzed during the alternatives evaluation Meetings regarding the "University Gateway process and eliminated because of its impacts to historically District" area or overlay, and members of the significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing Reno City council sit on the board of RTC, local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further therefore has RTC opted out of showing an analysis is required. For more information on alternatives expansion of route 7 stop ID:339 because it developed and why alternatives were or were not carried 26 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number does not align with the University Master Plan? forward in the project development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 27 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 7 7-12 Jeffrey Loftin 6. University of Nevada Reno's master plan Multiple criteria were used as part of the alternatives screening (Availabe online at process, including, but not limited to, evaluating an https://www.unr.edu/Documents/provost/provos alternative's ability to meet the Project's purpose and need, ts-office/forms/UNR-CMPU-2014-Final- and its consistency with existing planning documents, SCREEN%20UPDATED.pdf) on the cover including both the City of Reno University of Nevada Regional page, as well as on pages 2, 41, 58, and other Center Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. For more pages of that document, shows a multi-modal information on alternatives developed and why alternatives hub very similar to the hub described as the were or were not carried forward in the project development "community alternative" by RTC, however process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives since the Unversity Master plan predates the Development Process. selection of the community alternative for the stop at the southwest corner of UNR campus, RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- does RTC acknowledge that the multi-modal transportation use on the property is premature, pending hub with RTC is advancing has been completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities influenced by the UNR master plan? and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 7 7-13 Jeffrey Loftin 7. If Route 7 Stop 339 were to be selected as a The alternative to place the northbound transit station north of community preferred alternative to the location 9th Street was analyzed during the alternatives evaluation 200 feet to the south, as an expansion of an process and eliminated because of its impacts to historically existing stop, rather than a taking of seven significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing private properties with required demolition and local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further redevelopment, what dollar figure or at least analysis is required. For more information on alternatives what portion of the total Virginia Street Rapid developed and why alternatives were or were not carried Expansion budget would such a hub require for forward in the project development process, please see aquisition and construction of a hub? Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

In addition to the transit stop, the ROW requirements of the Preferred Alternative address the need for bicycle lanes, ADA- compliant sidewalks, center median, and bus turnout/queue jump lane. 7 7-14 Jeffrey Loftin 8. Will RTC Washoe please provide all present Route 7 Stop 339 has averaged 34 daily boardings between current ridership data for Route 7 stop 339 for 2012 and 2018 (annual average daily boardings are shown 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012? below). Average daily Route 7 boardings at stop 339: Additionally will RTC please specifically provide 2012: 31 daily ridership projections for the first three 2013: 32 years of operation supporting the specific need 28 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number for a multimodal hub between 8th Street and 2014: 34 9th Street since the 4th Street station is 0.7 2015: 34 miles (14 minutes walking distance) and 2016: 33 additional facilities are projected northward on 2017: 34 campus to facilitate the interchange of RTC and UNR shuttle riders? 2018 year to date: 38

Transit station locations were strategically selected to maximize access to activity centers throughout the corridor. To this end, five RAPID stations are included as part of this Project along North Virginia Street—at 15th Street, 14th Street NB,College Drive SB, and between 8th Street and 9th Street, both NB and SB. The station between 8th Street and 9th Street provides transit access to the University of Nevada, Reno's Quad and Historic District. A station at this location also will help bridge the barrier created by I-80 between Downtown Reno and the University, both of which represent large activity centers. 7 7-15 Jeffrey Loftin 9. Hedi Gansert, now senatior [sic] in the Nevada One of the primary purposes for the NEPA process is to State Sentate [sic], was serving as the involve as many stakeholders as possible in the planning Executive Director of External Relations for the process. To this end, the RTC has engaged, and continues to University of Nevada Reno when the Reno City engage, all interested stakeholders, including, but not limited Council approved the expansion of the to, public agencies—such as the City of Reno, the State of University Gateway District; this was during the Nevada—the University of Nevada, Reno, and others—private same time that Reno City councilwoman land owners, local residents, and the general public. These Neoma Jardon was serving as the chair of RTC stakeholders help to refine alternatives and ensure the Project Washoe, therefore was there any achieves its stated purpose and need. Only those alternatives communications between UNR staff and RTC that help meet the purpose and need are evaluated as Washoe staff (or boardmembers) or between alternatives as part of this Project. All alternatives considered RTC Washoe and Reno City Council staff as part of this Project are documented in the Virginia Street regarding an attempt to procure federal funding Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA. UNR and the City of for a project to redevelop the University Reno provided letters of support in 2016 for a federal grant for Gateway District? the Project described in the EA. RTC has not sought federal funds for any activities in the University Campus Gateway Precinct outside of the Project described in the EA.

RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 29 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC.

UNR is conducting campus planning activities for University- owned property to accommodate future growth. These efforts are ongoing and no specific plans have been released.

7 7-16 Jeffrey Loftin 10. RTC Executive Director Lee Gibson and RTC Criteria used to evaluate the location of potential transit Director of Planning Amy Cummings attended stations included the location's ability to meet the Project's Reno City council meetings where UNR purpose and need and its ability to be consistent with existing President Marc Johnson and External Director local planning documents. Community input also was used to of External Relations Hedi Gansert were refine station locations and station/intersection design. The present for public comment during Reno City station location between 8th Street and 9th Street was shown council Meetings in 2016 reguarding [sic] the to the public at seven public meetings. An online survey was University Gateway District overlay expansion conducted as part of the outreach process. Results of the where a recurring theme from students and a survey indicated 82 percent of respondents preferred the cross refrain from the City Mayor Hillary Schieve was section that showed bus pullouts in this location over the "removing blight" in Reno alternative that maintained the existing configuration at this (http://kunr.org/post/reno-developers-offer- location. For more information on how station locations were save-blighted-motels-rebuffed#stream/0), identified, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives therefore is RTC's decision to advance what Development Process, and Chapter 5, Public Outreach and they are describing as a "community preferred Agency Coordination. alternative" for a multimodal hub between 8th and 9th Street rather than 200 feet away As identified in the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan, it is a between 9th and 10th Street stem from or goal of RTC to partner with local jurisdictions and integrate support a Reno City Council initiative to transportation planning with land use plans. Consistency with remove blight (for example the two hotels local land use plans was an evaluation factor in selecting which RTC is planning to take) or does this in projects for inclusion in the RTP. any way advance the goals of the University of

Nevada Reno to redevelop the city block mentioned? University of Nevada Reno's The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way master plan provides images of ways that the acquisition activities until the environmental review process is intersection of Virginia and 9th Street in Reno, complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant NV may be developed as pictured by parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA-funded consultants, and these images match closely project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use what was presented in Reno City council or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state meetings and in RTC meetings with vegetation law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the 30 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number in a median dividing the the north and south State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E bound lanes of Virginia Street, therefore does Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and the UNR master plan which shows images of regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, University Properties built flush against the including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, multimodal hub align with discussions either joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on internal to RTC or discussions between RTC the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines board-members and UNR staff or those that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA promoting UNR's development plan for the has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address University Gateway District? the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts, based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 7 7-17 Jeffrey Loftin 11. Will RTC please comment on the economic There are no impacts expected to the businesses or properties impacts to the community, and also, on the west side of North Virginia Street between 8th Street separately, the economic benefits to UNR of and 9th Street as part of this Project. The benefits of the the elimination of the businesses on the west Project are established in the purpose and need (presented in side of North Virginia Street between 8th and Chapter 1) and further explained and supported throughout the 9th Street? EA. For more information on properties directly impacted by this Project, please see Appendix H, Acquisitions and Relocations Technical Memorandum, in the EA. 7 7-18 Jeffrey Loftin 12. Will RTC please provide in response to these RTC public records are open to inspection and copying to the questions transcripts of any communications full extent required by Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter and or emails that exist between RTC and or 239—Public Records. Members of the public can contact employees and board members and any UNR RTC’s administrative offices to submit public records requests. or NSHE employees? 7 7-19 Jeffrey Loftin 13. Has RTC polled UNR students specifically in A robust public outreach effort was conducted as part of this the selection of the positioning of the multi- Project. This included numerous meetings with community groups as well as the general public. In total, there were four Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 31 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number modal hub? community information meetings/community planning workshops held as part of this Project in which the general public, including UNR students and faculty, had the opportunity to provide input on all aspects of the Project.

This included a public meeting held on the UNR campus on April 15, 2015. The public meetings and EA Notice of Availability were advertised in the Nevada Sagebrush, the UNR campus student newspaper. In addition, UNR students and faculty had the opportunity to participate in the online survey about alternatives that was available in-person at a June 18, 2015, community workshop and online between June 18 and July 27, 2015. Of all survey respondents, 82 percent preferred the design option reflected in the Preferred Alternative between 8th Street and 9th Street compared to an option that maintained the existing roadway configuration in that block.

In addition, the Project was featured and discussed as part of the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan process at the Millennial Forum held on the UNR campus on May 2, 2016.

For more information about the public outreach activities completed as part of this Project, please see Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Public Outreach. 7 7-20 Jeffrey Loftin 14. Does an agreement exist between RTC and Currently, no agreement exists between the RTC and the UNR UNR for the interchange of passengers and the Shuttle Service for the use of this station. The station between sharing of the use of the proposed multi-modal 8th Street and 9th Street is sized to accommodate both the platform? RAPID at the RAPID station and the RTC RIDE bus south of that station. Depending on the RIDE and UNR Shuttle schedules, the UNR Shuttle may be able to use the same curb space south of the RAPID station.

32 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 7 7-21 Jeffrey Loftin 15. Is there economic consideration to be given The RTC has made no financial arrangements for the shared from RTC to UNR or from UNR to RTC in use of the proposed facilities, but has designed the facilities to exchange for the shared use of these proposed accommodate other transit uses. The station is sized to facilities which with be partially funded with accommodate both the RAPID at the RAPID station and the federal money? If so will RTC please provide RTC RIDE bus and the RTC ACCESS paratransit south of that any discussions or contract copies of such station. Depending on the RIDE and UNR Shuttle schedules, agreements for examples as they may exist the UNR Shuttle may be able to use the same curb space elsewhere withing the RTC system as a south of the RAPID station. response to this question? RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 7 7-22 Jeffrey Loftin 16. In deciding on this location for the multi-modal Criteria used to evaluate the location of potential transit hub is RTC aware of the number of customers stations included the location's ability to meet the Project's served by Textbook Brokers and the size of the purpose and need and its ability to be consistent with existing cost savings which this private company local planning documents. Community input also was used to provides to UNR students who would be refine station locations. For more information on how station potential transit riders? locations were identified, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 7 7-23 Jeffrey Loftin 17. Will RTC please quantify the fare dollars which No specific fare collection estimates have been calculated for the proposed multi-modal hub stop specifically individual stations or station alternatives. This information will generate as positioned at 9th street versus would not be considered one of the criteria for the selection of one block north? the Preferred Alternative. 7 7-24 Jeffrey Loftin 18. Will RTC please propose the closing of 10th The purpose and analysis of the closure of 10th Street is not a Street to the Reno City council to improve the part of the scope of this Project and this Environmental safety of the existing route 7 stop 339 stop and Assessment. In addition, the configuration of 10th Street does further facilitate development there? not affect the safety of existing or future RTC transit services. 7 7-25 Jeffrey Loftin 19. Is RTC covering the Orr ditch currently involved Although unrelated to this Project, the RTC confirms that in a project to cover the Orr ditch at Pyramid modifications have occurred to a portion of the Orr Ditch where Highway? it crosses under the Pyramid Highway in the City of Sparks.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 33 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 7 7-26 Jeffrey Loftin 20. Is covering the Orr ditch near rout 7 stop 339 a The Orr Ditch has not been identified or evaluated as a historic problem for the historic nature of the ditch? resource for this Project. For more information about historic resources, please see Chapter 3, Section 3.5, Historic Resources. 7 7-27 Jeffrey Loftin 21. Manzanita Hall is historic, but could a Criteria used to evaluate the location of potential transit stations multimodal hub be developed adjacent to included the location's ability to meet the Project's purpose and Manzanita hall that would not impact the hall need and its ability to be consistent with existing local planning (http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016 documents. Furthermore, community input also was used to /11/29/here-4-new-student-housing-projects- refine station locations. For more information on how station planned-unr/90264242/)--? locations were identified, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

Additionally, the location(s) chosen does avoid impacts to the University of Nevada National Historic District, including Manzanita Hall (1896), Morrill Hall (1886), and the Mackay School of Mines (1908). 7 7-28 Jeffrey Loftin 22. Is the Manzanita bowl a park by definition? The Manzanita Bowl is afforded Section 4(f) protections under Could UNR designate a strip of land deep federal law because it is a contributing element to the enough for the provision of a multimodal hub University of Nevada, Reno Historic District. Placing the station on the western perimeter of the Manzanita at the western perimeter of the Manzanita Bowl would impact bowl? this historically significant resource. 7 7-29 Jeffrey Loftin Thank you, in advance for responding. Our Comment noted. Comments received on the EA have been concerns are that we want to be able to continue to documented and responded to in this section. do business. Please respond in writing and also feel free to contact me on my cell phone at 318- 464-3556 in addition to responding in writing.

34 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 8 8-1 Ken Long R.T.C., The proposed center median is included as part of the Project the current plan shows no left turn for five blocks to improve transit travel times and enhance traffic and heading south from liberty. being as Center street pedestrian safety. The median is essential to accommodate is a one way street, half of our patrons would have the public's desire for a "less auto-centric" environment by to travel five blocks before they could turn left and providing the widest possible sidewalks, improving safety, and the they would have to go back on center street minimizing the loss of curbside parking. and then turn left again to find a back way into our establishment. we have put a lot of money into our Left-turn opportunities to promote traffic circulation and location because we would like to enjoy the business access will be provided in this area at the Center benefits of the traffic on Virginia st. With the current Street/Mary Street roundabout, at West Taylor Street and St. design you intend, it will cut our patronage. Lawrence Street for northbound traffic, at the signalized California Avenue intersection for northbound traffic, and at Cheney Street for southbound traffic.

For more information on the need for and benefits of the center median on South Virginia Street between Vassar Street and Liberty Street, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, Multimodal Access to Transit Stops. 8 8-2 Ken Long A possible solution could be, eliminate the planned Based on comments received on the EA, small changes have island in front of Feast at California and Virginia been made to the Preferred Alternative, including reducing the intersection. paint in a left turn lane and add a light length of the northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of to the already existing light. Another solution would South Virginia Street and Liberty Street that in turn be, a round about at the California and Virginia accommodates left-turn access from southbound South intersection. Virginia Street to Stewart Street. Circulation at this segment of Virginia Street is found to improve overall traffic circulation, Please look into this before plans are finalized. including those seeking to access the location in question by thank you, Ken @ Feast. the ability to access that property’s parking lot using the alley (public right of way) off Stewart Street. 9 9-1 Barrie Lynn As the chair of the Advisory Council to Historic Comments noted. The Project will not impact the historic Reno Preservation Society (HRPS), I am making properties that front Center Street between 8th Street and 9th this comment on behalf of HRPS. HRPS is a 501c3 Street. This determination of no adverse effect on historic nonprofit with over 1000 members dedicated to properties was reviewed and concurred with by the Nevada preserving history through education and SHPO. For more information on historic resources evaluated advocacy. HRPS' primary concern about this as part of this Project, please see Appendix F, Historic project is the eminent domain taking of the Resources Technical Memorandum, in the EA. properties on the east side of the 800 block of Virginia Street and the impact this may have on

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 35 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number several historically significant nineteenth century homes that are located on the west side of the 800 block of Center Street and back up to the properties identified for being taken. 9 9-2 Barrie Lynn RTC has indicated that they only need about 60 The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way frontage feet of these properties for their multi acquisition activities until the environmental review process is modal transportation hub, so the question remains, complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential what happens to the remainder of the land? UNR remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- has indicated that their new business college will funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action be built here. Has it already been decided that the regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided leftover land will be given to UNR? by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

36 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number protection of these important historical resources. Should UNR receive a gift of this land or a first option to purchase the remaining land left over from the transportation hub, we would like some assurance that the homes on Center Street will be preserved. There is nothing else like them in all of Reno. Their loss would be a community loss. 10 10-1 Aria Overli Hello, Due to the low-income environmental justice communities located within the Project study area, an analysis of available Please find my public comment for this project affordable units for low-income households was conducted. below: The findings of this analysis concluded that there is sufficient affordable housing in Reno to accommodate displaced I am representing ACTIONN, a non-profit which households. Furthermore, all acquisitions will be conducted in works with communities of faith to fight for issues of a manner consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance justice. Our primary campaign at the moment is and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as around affordable housing, as Washoe County is amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. facing a housing crisis, which must be stymied as quickly as possible before it becomes unsolvable. To help minimize potential impacts to environmental justice communities affected by the Project, specific mitigation actions It is my understanding that RTC plans to purchase have been identified in Appendix I, Environmental Justice and a number of properties in order to complete this Community Disruption Technical Memorandum, in the EA. extension project, including a number of weeklies Furthermore, the City of Reno recognizes that, like many cities at the corner of Virginia and 8 th Street. While we throughout the U.S., housing prices are increasing. The City recognize that RTC plans to do everything in their already has set goals to maintain or increase the share of power to relocate any displaced residents, we are affordable housing and it is striving to expand and preserve concerned about the destruction of low-income affordable and mixed-income housing opportunities. The housing without the creation of new units. Virginia Street corridor has been identified as a transit-oriented Additionally, the lack of available units leaves the corridor by the City. This Project, through the implementation concern that you will have nowhere to actually of improved bus RAPID service, will support the development relocate these residents. of Virginia Street as a mixed-income, multi-use corridor that is consistent with the City's existing goals to support affordable Currently, Reno is facing record-low vacancy rates, housing and mixed-income housing opportunities. with less than 2% of units available to be rented. With your plan, some of the only housing available Additionally, the RTC has initiated an Affordable Housing to low-income residents, no matter how sub- Study to identify strategies it can undertake to support the standard, will be destroyed with no alternative development of affordable housing near transit. This study will being created, only furthering our housing crisis, focus primarily on BRT station areas and other high-frequency, lowering the vacancy rate in Reno, and expanding high-ridership routes. It will include market analysis, station

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 37 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number homelessness. area planning, and extensive coordination with both public and private stakeholders interested in affordable housing. Therefore, this plan presents a more than significant risk to the residents of Washoe County, For more information about the evaluation of acquisitions and which must be mitigated with either a displacements to environmental justice communities, please comprehensive plan to ensure replacement of lost see Appendix I, Environmental Justice and Community units for low-income residents or through an Disruption Technical Memorandum, in the EA. Environmental Impact Study to determine exactly what effect this move will have on the housing crisis in Reno. 10 10-2 Aria Overli We also understand that this project intends to The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way purchase several plots of land in order to expand acquisition activities until the environmental review process is streets, create new bus stations and transportation complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential hubs, and insert roundabouts. It is clear from the remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- current plans that the entirely of the plots, while funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action they must be purchased, will not be completely regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by utilized for these projects. We recommend creating Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, a comprehensive plan to ensure that these unused Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA plots will be turned over to local governments with Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These the express intent of using them to create low- laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the income housing to replace the lost units from the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- destruction of weekly motels. related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC The creation of this plan would mitigate concerns determines that excess property exists upon completion of a over the furthering of our already severe housing project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods crisis and would thus ensure that an EIS does not to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be become necessary. required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a

comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation Thank you for your time. planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

38 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 11 11-1 David Pritchett Thanks for the opportunity for public comment Although bicycle safety is not mentioned specifically in the during this 30-day public review period. purpose and need for the Project, the safety of bicyclists was considered during Project development. As part of the Virginia Comments here are presented generally by topic or Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project, new and substantive issue. upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities are included to improve multimodal connections to and from transit.

Improvements include the addition of bicycle lanes, bicycle Purpose and Need for the proposed project signage, improved pedestrian facilities, and improved street deliberately omits bicyclist safety but includes lighting. Details about these improvements, including their pedestrian safety as an overall project goal, even proposed locations, are discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, though the project description features some Multimodal Access to Transit Stops; in Section 2.3.2, Design bicycling safety and wayfinding features and Options; in Table 3, Multimodal Components of the Preferred bicyclist safety was promoted by RTC and Alternative; and in Figure 7, Multimodal Access to Transit Stop requested by the public during the many public Components of the Preferred Alternative, in the Virginia Street outreach and scoping meetings. The Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA. Environmental Assessment (EA) should include

bicyclist safety as a co-equal goal to reflect this project intent during the abundant outreach and Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, Design Options, indicates that scoping by RTC. Indeed, on page 26 Throughout buffered bicycle lanes were studied but were not advanced the EA, bicycling is widely under-represented or due to right-of-way constraints along most of the South mis-described as a common mode of transportation Virginia Street corridor. of choice in the project area. The only mention seems to be on page 26 in reference to college The bicycle lane locations in the Preferred Alternative are students who ride, but apparently no other consistent with the RTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and community group or sector is acknowledged in the the Complete Streets Master Plan. Virginia Street in Midtown is not EA. This omission appears to be a deficiency in the identified for bicycle lanes in these plans for several reasons. A Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis for not continuous bicycle facility between UNR and Midtown is needed recognizing that bicycling or walking may be the but would not be feasible through the downtown section of preferred or only mode of transportation for a Virginia Street due to the narrow street width and frequent substantial portion of the population in the project special event road closures. In addition, the lower traffic volumes area. The project area is acknowledged as on streets parallel to Virginia Street make them better suited to featuring an EJ community. bicycle use.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 39 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number

The most recent Bicycle, Pedestrian & Wheelchair Data Collection Program Annual Report indicates that Virginia Street at Martin Street in the Midtown area experienced a bicycle mode share of 1.35 percent with an average of seven cyclists per hour during the data collection periods. 11 11-2 David Pritchett In the EA (also page 26 under Bicycle Increasing sidewalk widths is a critical component to meeting Infrastructure): "Bicycles are recognized as an the Project purpose. Reducing sidewalk widths to inexpensive mode of transportation and the accommodate buffered bicycle lanes would impede and not preferred method of travel for many college enhance the Project’s ability to meet the stated purpose. For students in the area surrounding the university. more information about the Project's purpose and need, Working with stakeholders, the study team studied please see Chapter 1, Section 1.2, Purpose of the Project. project locations for sufficient right of way to fit dedicated bike lanes, shared transit and bicycle Chapter 2, Section 2.3.2, Design Options, indicates that lanes, and wide sidewalks. Buffered bike lanes also buffered bicycle lanes were studied but were not advanced were studied; however, this option was not due to right-of-way constraints along most of the South advanced due to right-of-way constraints." This Virginia Street corridor. conclusion in the EA is faulty because it assumes

that sidewalk widths are fixed in the project streetscape design. Bicycle facilities in the Preferred Alternative are consistent with the RTC Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Complete Streets Master Plan, which do not include bicycle lanes on Virginia Street in the Midtown area.

Bicycle lanes on streets parallel to Virginia Street—including Center Street, Sierra Street, and Forest Street—have been included as separate projects in the RTC’s Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Bicycle lanes on Evans Avenue, a parallel street east of Virginia Street, were constructed in 2018. 11 11-3 David Pritchett The EA needs to analyze and disclose safety The proposed Project includes the addition of dedicated 40 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number hazards for pedestrians and for how bicyclists in a bicycle lanes, shared transit and bicycle lanes, and shared dedicated lane along South Virginia Street will vehicle and bicycle lanes throughout the Virginia Street respond to the disappearance and morphing of the corridor where no bicycle facilities exist today. These lane into a sharrow-marked shared traffic lane with additions, coupled with other traffic-calming features such as motor vehicle traffic in the upper portion of South roundabouts, wider sidewalks, medians, and streetscaping, will Virginia Street. Considering that research shows reduce auto travel speeds and improve safety for all roadway that bicyclists will ride where they feel sufficiently users. safe when confronted with automotive traffic, the street segments of sharrowed lanes likely will see The Reno Code Section 6.18.10—Riding on Sidewalks, states more safety and other conflicts with the stated that any person riding a bicycle on a sidewalk shall yield the project purpose or goal for enhancing pedestrian right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before safety. This omission from the EA clouds the stated overtaking and passing pedestrians. It is unlawful for any Purpose and Need to improve pedestrian safety. person to operate a bicycle on any sidewalk within the central The whole analysis in the EA needs to admit that business district (CBD), but the CBD is not part of the Project when the bike lanes disappear, riders will choose area. the very wide sidewalks, and that human behavior has consequences for pedestrian safety and other effects.

See this summary article and its many citations: “Bicyclists on Sidewalks: Why They're Not Going Away, and What We Can Do About It when simply banning bikes from riding on sidewalks does more harm than good; a better understanding of why people choose to ride bikes on the sidewalk will be necessary to create safer environments for all users” (link: https://www.planetizen.com/node/84910/bicyclists- sidewalks-why-theyre-not-going-away-and-what- we-can-do-about-it). 11 11-4 David Pritchett The wayfinding or other bicycling routes are not The purpose of this Project is to "…increase transit ridership described in substantial detail in the EA. The EA and connectivity, enhance pedestrian safety, and improve needs to describe how well, or not, these routes accessibility to transit in the Virginia Street corridor." Improving would be used by real bicyclists and if they offer a wayfinding and routes for bicyclists was included to the extent desired route or access to a destination, including to which it helps meet this stated purpose. the commercial corridor along South Virginia Street. 11 11-5 David Pritchett The EA also needs to disclose predicted traffic The proposed Project does not include any changes to the

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 41 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number speeds after project completion, considering the existing posted 25 mph speed limit. Design speeds and speed melding of single automobiles, bicyclists, and in- limits are established primarily on the physical characteristics lane bus stops or stations with or without bus of a roadway and the built form surrounding it. Virginia Street pockets (if traffic speed figures are reported, those will be redesigned in the Preferred Alternative to achieve the figures are not easy to find). That predicted speeds existing and proposed posted speed limit of 25 mph as much should be compared to the desired speeds or as possible, through the incorporation of traffic-calming speed limit without the aid of traffic modeling and features. Traffic-calming features included as part of the predictions. Preferred Alternative range from raised center medians to installation of bulbouts at crosswalks. Other studies in the Reno-Sparks area have shown that traffic-calming techniques, such as narrower travel lanes and wider sidewalks, result in drivers traveling at or closer to the posted speed limit. 11 11-6 David Pritchett The proposed project takes through eminent The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way domain many parcels for the roundabout on South acquisition activities until the environmental review process is Virginia Street and a bus pocket along North complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential Virginia Street. Nothing in the EA discloses the remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- intention or available options by, presumably, RTC funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action or City of Reno for what will be the disposition of regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided these properties, when, surely, these local by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, agencies do have laws and policies that govern the Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA property disposition or range of options. The EA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These should acknowledge if the intention here is to laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the convey these properties to University of Nevada or property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- not. related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 43 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 11 11-7 David Pritchett An adequate mitigation for the loss of low-income The Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA housing along North Virginia Street, so the project acknowledges the low-income environmental justice results in less-than-significant impacts for adverse communities located along the corridor. As part of this impacts to housing and EJ communities, would be evaluation, special consideration was given to the Project's to preserve in perpetuity as rental housing the impacts to these communities, including those impacted by other western half of that same block, and/or to property acquisitions. The findings of this analysis concluded assure an equal number of low-income housing is that there is sufficient affordable housing in Reno to preserved in the Reno downtown area. Plenty of accommodate displaced households. Furthermore, all substandard housing (aka “weeklies”) and acquisitions will be conducted in a manner consistent with the associated properties are available for this housing Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition preservation and improvement effort to provide Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. adequate mitigation under NEPA. To help minimize potential impacts to environmental justice The parcel taken for the roundabout on the west communities affected by the Project, specific mitigation actions side of South Virginia Street also should be have been identified in Appendix I, Environmental Justice and developed by a public agency for affordable, low- Community Disruption Technical Memorandum, in the EA. income housing as an adequate mitigation Furthermore, the City of Reno recognizes that, like many cities measure. The number of lost residences and throughout the U.S., housing prices are increasing. The City numbers of occupants also should be revealed in already has set goals to maintain or increase the share of the EA, a glaring analytical omission. This adverse affordable housing and it is striving to expand and preserve impact of permanently lost housing in the project affordable and mixed-income housing opportunities. The area is significantly magnified and exacerbated as Virginia Street corridor has been identified as a transit-oriented these properties currently provide relatively low corridor by the City. This Project, through the implementation cost housing for Environmental Justice of improved bus RAPID service, will support the development communities in the project area. of Virginia Street as a mixed-income, multi-use corridor and is consistent with the City's existing goals to support affordable housing and mixed-income housing opportunities.

44 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number

Appendix H: Acquisitions and Relocations Technical Memorandum, in the EA details the number of residences that will be relocated. This includes 21 apartment units and 58 motel room units. Residents will be relocation in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E.

The RTC has initiated an Affordable Housing Study to identify strategies it can undertake to support the development of affordable housing near transit. This study will focus primarily on BRT station areas and other high-frequency, high-ridership routes. It will include market analysis, station area planning, and extensive coordination with both public and private stakeholders interested in affordable housing. 11 11-8 David Pritchett Reductions in on-street car parking also is a Parking impacts resulting from this Project have not been substantial, if not significant adverse impact of the identified to be significant. The City of Reno does not mandate project that is not acknowledged in the EA. This on-street parking within the City, including the Virginia Street can be adequately mitigated by converting the corridor. This corridor is designated by the City as a mixed-use segment of Center Street, between Cheney St. and district for which "parking standards and policies are intended Liberty St., into a single traffic lane with diagonal to minimize parking and encourage transit and pedestrian car parking spots on the east side of Center Street, circulation (Reno Municipal Code Title 18, Section for a net gain in spaces on a block face with few if 18.08.301.5)". Furthermore, the Project has maintained any driveways and nearly all with dining and visitor- parking where practical, resulting in a net loss of only three on- serving properties. This design also will result in street parking spaces out of an existing 291 spaces along slower traffic speeds and greatly improve South Virginia Street. For more information about impacts to pedestrian safety for crossing Center Street parking resulting from this Project, please see Appendix D, (especially at Cheney Street), as drivers naturally Traffic and Parking Impacts Technical Memoranda, in the EA. speed up along those blocks as it currently is 2 Center Street comments noted. one-way traffic lanes northbound. A bike lane also may fit in those blocks of Center Street, thereby The addition of bicycle lanes and other multimodal also addressing the other bicycling issues and improvements on Center Street is a separate project in the impacts mentioned elsewhere in these comments. RTC FY 2018-2022 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 45 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 12 12-1 David A-1: This Project was initiated in 2014, with Robertson the initial public information sessions being conducted in April, June, and August 2015. These information sessions were publicly advertised using press releases, local mailers, the Project website, social media, and other methods. For more information on public outreach activities, please see Chapter 5, Public Outreach and Agency Coordination, or the Project website: http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/comm unity-working-group/.

The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way acquisition activities until the environmental review process is complete. However, no property acquisition is anticipated for the referenced property. Potential impacts to individual properties that result from constructing improvements within existing public right of way are identified and mitigated during the right-of-way acquisition phase. A-1 Based on comments received on the EA, small changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative, including moving the existing transit station currently located on southbound South Virginia Street near Stewart Street farther to the north to be closer to the intersection of Liberty Street and South Virginia Street. The revised station location will enhance BRT operations, will place the station closer to a signalized pedestrian crosswalk for improved safety, and will be constructed in the public right of way.

46 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number This revision indirectly eliminates the need to remove any of the existing Virginia Street access points to the referenced property (445 South Virginia Street) and the mitigation that would have been determined at the appropriate time.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 47 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 12 12-2 David B-1 through B-4: Based on comments Robertson received on the environmental assessment, small changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative, including moving the existing transit station currently located on B-1 southbound South Virginia Street near Stewart Street farther to the north to be closer to the intersection of Liberty Street and South Virginia Street. The revised B-2 station location will enhance BRT operations, will place the station closer to a signalized pedestrian crosswalk for improved safety, and will be constructed in the public right of way. This revision indirectly eliminates the need to remove any of the existing Virginia Street access points to the referenced property (445 South Virginia Street) and the B-3 mitigation that would have been determined at the appropriate time.

B-4

48 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 12 12-3 David B-5: Based on comments received on the Robertson environmental assessment, small changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative, including moving the existing transit station currently located on southbound South Virginia Street near Stewart Street farther to the north to be closer to the intersection of Liberty Street and South Virginia Street. This eliminates the need to remove any access or potentially block B-5 visibility of the property in question (445 South Virginia Street).

B-6: During final design, stations will be B-6 designed to incorporate sidewalks. Based on comments received on the environmental assessment, small changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative, including moving the existing transit station currently located on southbound South Virginia Street near Stewart Street farther to the north to be closer to the intersection of Liberty Street and South B-7 Virginia Street. The revised station location will enhance BRT operations, will place the station closer to a signalized pedestrian crosswalk for improved safety, and will be constructed in the public right of way. This revision indirectly eliminates the need to remove any of the existing Virginia Street access points to the referenced property (445 South Virginia Street) and the mitigation that would have been determined at the appropriate time.

B-7: Based on comments received on the environmental assessment, small changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative, including moving the existing transit station currently located on southbound South Virginia Street near Stewart Street farther to the north

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 49 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number to be closer to the intersection of Liberty Street and South Virginia Street. The revised station location will enhance BRT operations, will place the station closer to a signalized pedestrian crosswalk for improved safety, and will be constructed in the public right of way. This revision indirectly eliminates the need to remove any of the existing Virginia Street access points to the referenced property (445 South Virginia Street) and the mitigation that would have been determined at the appropriate time.

50 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 12 12-4 David C-1: The proposed center median is Robertson included as part of the Project to improve transit travel times and enhance traffic safety. The median is essential to accommodate the public's desire for a "less auto-centric" environment by providing the widest possible sidewalks, improving safety, and minimizing the loss of curbside parking. For more information on the need for and benefits of the center median on South C-1 Virginia Street between Vassar Street and Liberty Street, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, Multimodal Access to Transit Stops. C-2 In response to comments, minor changes were incorporated in the Project improvements. The southbound left-turn pocket and raised center median opening for left-turn movements onto Stewart Street was changed to allow for better vehicular circulation in that area, which also will better accommodate existing business uses. C-3 In the eight-block segment between Vassar Street and Liberty Street where the median will be constructed, left-turn opportunities to support safe traffic circulation and business access will be provided at the Center Street/Mary Street roundabout, at West Taylor Street, at St. Lawrence Street, and the signalized California Avenue intersection for northbound traffic; and at Stewart Street and Cheney Street for southbound traffic.

Accommodations have been made for left turns on to streets that already contain on- street parking for the businesses. The Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 51 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Project has been designed allow access to existing parking and reduce traffic where there are no parking opportunities in residential areas.

C-2: Raised medians have been shown to reduce intersection crashes involving a pedestrian by 46 percent, and non- intersection crashes involving a pedestrian by 39 percent (Lindley, J., Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures, FHWA, Washington, DC, July 2008.) Additional information of the benefits of raised medians for safety can be found on the Federal Highway Administration’s website: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_s olve/medians_brochure/

The project is expected to improve safety in nearby residential neighborhoods near South Virginia Street because of the traffic calming measures described above. As shown in Figure 12 of this FONSI, the project includes multimodal improvements on multiple side streets in the Midtown area. These improvements include wider sidewalks and enhanced crosswalks, which will further improve pedestrian safety. In addition to traffic calming features, the speed limits on these side streets are lower than on most regional roads, further improving safety.

Extensive analysis of pedestrian and bicycle safety has been conducted in the Project area. The property identified in this comment

52 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number is located in the block between California Avenue and Liberty Street. As shown in the map below, this block contains the highest concentration of pedestrian and bicycle crashes in the entire corridor. Between Liberty Street and Plumb Lane during 2011 through 2016, 38 percent of all pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurred in the block between Liberty Street and California Avenue. This included three serious injury crashes. Crashes on side streets are much less common and less likely to result in an injury. This may be attributed to slower travel speeds. The lower speed limit, narrower lane width, and on-street parking that are characteristic of these side streets are known to have the effect of slowing automobile travel speeds, resulting in fewer crashes. This Project addresses the serious pedestrian safety needs on Virginia Street and improves pedestrian safety infrastructure on several side streets as well.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 53 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number

38% of bicycle and pedestrian crashes in the Project corridor between Liberty & Plumb occurred between Liberty and California

C-3: Improvements included as part of this Project are expected to encourage people to choose travel modes other than a car, resulting in the increased use of transit, walking, and biking in the corridor. This will result in an overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled and an associated improvement to air quality. RTC estimates that the annual vehicle miles of travel (VMT) will be reduced by approximately 50,000 VMT per year.

54 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number An analysis of potential out-of-direction travel resulting from the center median was conducted as part of the 2016 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Traffic Impact Analysis. Due to the relatively small geographic area impacted, surrounding grid street network, and opportunities for left turn movements at multiple intersections on Virginia Street, the impact to traffic volumes on side streets and overall vehicle miles of travel is minimal. The seven local streets in the impacted area are expected to experience, on average, an additional 20 cars during the morning peak period and an additional 15 cars in the afternoon peak period as a result of limited intersection left turn movements. VMT resulting from left turn restrictions at intersections is expected to be 765. This is more than offset by the over 50,000 VMT reduction that is generated by the project as a whole.

Limited left turn movements are included in the regional travel demand model traffic analysis. This analysis of vehicles miles traveled was used to determine that this Project, combined with all projects in the Regional Transportation Plan, conforms to air quality standards as described in Section 3.2 in the Environmental Assessment.

To address the temporary impacts during construction, the following mitigation measures will be implemented, as described in Section 3.4.4 of the Environmental Assessment:  The contractor will prepare a detailed traffic control plan that

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 55 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number includes detours, lane closures, and street closures.  The contractor will maintain traffic throughout construction of the Project in accordance with the approved traffic control plans and perform work in a manner that assures the safety and convenience of the public and protects the residents, businesses, and property adjacent to the Project.  The contractor will make special considerations for local access to and from properties adjacent to the construction zone. All efforts will be made to minimize the inconvenience to the local residents and business owners. Two studies on the economic impacts of raised medians were completed for the Utah Department of Transportation and the Texas Department of Transportation. Both studies indicated that local businesses experienced little to no change in sales after the installation of raised medians. These studies are available on the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project website: http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/docume nt-archive/.

56 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 12 12-5 David C-4: The traffic analysis completed as part of Robertson this Project, which shows acceptable levels of service, included the assumption of a median along South Virginia Street between Liberty Street and Vassar Street. This median will improve traffic flow by ensuring vehicles do not attempt to make a left turn into a driveway or side street. Because there is not enough width to provide left-turn lanes, vehicles attempting to make a left-turn across traffic would be required to wait in the travel lane until a gap could be found. This would block the only travel lane, resulting in increased delays for through vehicles, including transit vehicles.

The proposed center median is included as part of the Project to improve transit travel times and enhance traffic and pedestrian safety. The median is essential to accommodate the public's desire for a "less auto-centric" environment by providing the widest possible sidewalks, improving safety, and minimizing the loss of curbside parking. For more information on the need for and benefits of the center median on South Virginia Street between Vassar Street and Liberty Street, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, Multimodal Access to Transit Stops.

C-4

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 57 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 12 12-6 David D-1: The Midtown District is centered on Robertson South Virginia Street and extends from approximately Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue in the south to approximately the Truckee River. For the purposes of this Project, improvements to the Midtown District include all of those proposed along South Virginia Street between approximately Mt. Rose Street/Holcomb Avenue to approximately Liberty Street. This is consistent with City of Reno and Midtown Merchants Association boundaries of Midtown.

Based on comments received on the environmental assessment, small changes have been made to the Preferred Alternative, D-1 including moving the existing transit station currently located on southbound South Virginia Street near Stewart Street farther to the north to be closer to the intersection of Liberty Street and South Virginia Street. The revised station location will enhance BRT operation and will be constructed in the public right of way. This revision indirectly eliminates the need to remove any of the existing Virginia Street access points to the referenced property (445 South Virginia Street) and the mitigation that would have been determined at the appropriate time.

E-1 E-1: A robust public outreach effort was conducted as part of this Project. This included numerous meetings with public agencies, community groups, and businesses, as well as the general public. In addition to receiving feedback at each meeting, there were multiple opportunities for

58 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number interested parties to provide feedback via online surveys, emails, phone calls, public comment periods, and more. For more information about the public outreach activities completed as part of this Project, E-2 please see Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Public Outreach. RTC has met with and continues to meet with any business, property owner, or other interested member of the public upon request.

The Work Plan included in the Public Involvement Plan referenced in the comment established the minimum for outreach activities to be conducted for the Project. The Work Plan was exceeded and does not include the full list of meetings and outreach activities that occurred, which are provided in Table 2 of the EA.

Businesses and property owners within three-quarters of a mile of the Project were sent notices regarding the project and project meetings through direct mail.

E-2: The City of Reno has identified the Virginia Street corridor to be a transit- oriented corridor and has developed plans to encourage an intensification of non-auto- oriented development along the corridor. The improvements to RAPID service proposed as part of this plan are critical to meeting the City's plans for the corridor. This new, more- intense development is intended to provide additional mixed-income housing and retail opportunities in the corridor.

Additionally, two studies on the economic Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 59 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number impacts of raised medians were completed for the Utah Department of Transportation and the Texas Department of Transportation. Both studies indicated that local businesses experienced little to no change in sales after the installation of raised medians. These studies are available on the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project website: http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/docu ment-archive/.

RTC conducted a benefit-cost analysis for this Project that assessed projected savings related to travel time, vehicle operation costs, crash reductions, and vehicle emission reductions. This assessment confirmed that the benefits to the community as a result of the Preferred Alternative will greatly outweigh the Project costs. Using a 3-percent discount rate (2016 USD), the benefit-cost ratio for the Project is 2.44. Using a 7-percent discount rate, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.66.

60 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 61 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 13 13-1 Scott Stranzl Doug—we were forwarded today from a 3rd party Based on comments received on the EA, small changes have the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension been made to the Preferred Alternative, including reducing the information regarding the proposed changes on S. length of the northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Virginia. We are the owners of 50 W. Liberty and South Virginia Street and Liberty Street and providing left-turn would appreciate discussing the project and the access from southbound South Virginia Street to Stewart impacts to the vehicular access in and around the Street. Although vehicles exiting the property in question still area. Our main concern is that as a result of the would be required to turn right onto southbound South Virginia proposed modifications it appears that customers Street, the left turn at Stewart Street will reduce any added who exit the parking garage from 50 W. Liberty on out-of-direction travel. to S. Virginia will no longer be able to turn left on to S. Virginia. Additionally, a car traveling South on S. Two studies on the economic impacts of raised medians were Virginia will no longer be able to turn left on to completed for the Utah Department of Transportation and the Stewart St. Texas Department of Transportation. Both studies indicated that local businesses experienced little to no change in sales I look forward to discussing these items further. I after the installation of raised medians. These studies are look forward to hearing from you. available on the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project website: http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/document-archive/.

Furthermore, raised medians have been shown to reduce intersection crashes involving a pedestrian by 46 percent, and non-intersection crashes involving a pedestrian by 39 percent (Lindley, J., Guidance Memorandum on Consideration and Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures, FHWA, Washington, DC, July 2008). Additional information on the benefits of raised medians for safety can be found on the Federal Highway Administration’s website: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/medians_bro chure/ 14 14-1 Mark Taxer I am very concerned about historic structures along The parcels in question, those fronting Center Street between Virginia street that may not be directly affected by 8th Street and 9th Street, will not be impacted as a result of the plan, but may have have indirect effects due to this Project. This determination of no adverse effect on historic their proximity. Chiefly my concern is with the properties was affirmed by the Nevada SHPO. For more Victorian homes in the Gateway District, on Center information about the determination of effect, please see St between 8th and 9th. The transit hub is planned Appendix F, Historic Resources Technical Memorandum, in for the Virginia St half of this block and goes right the EA. Any future changes to these properties would be the to the alley behind these homes. What is the plan result of a separate action not included as part of this Project. in conjunction with UNR to preserve and utilize this Therefore, no additional analysis of or planning for these

62 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number resource to full historic/functional/heritage tourism properties is included in this EA. with the full financial benefit to be derived from preservation? 14 14-2 Mark Taxer In addition, if the full space acquired by RTC is not The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way completely utilized, (in the current alley area) acquisition activities until the environmental review process is perhaps it should be used in concert with complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential preservation of the original Victorian structures as remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- some sort of heritage structure business park. funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 63 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number departments/public-works/regional-stormwater- quality-management-program/developers- industry/low-impact-development-manual). Would RTC be open to incorporate some LID into the Virginia Street project to go beyond the minimum required? In particular, having large soil volumes for the designed street trees in chambers under the sidewalk that also capture storm water from the road (such as the Silva Cell system from Deeproot or similar, see http://www.deeproot.com/products/silva- cell/landing-page/silva-cell-2/overview). Thank you for taking this into consideration. 16 16-1 Jenny My name is Jenny Brekhus.·I'm the Reno City The Lead Agency for this Project is the Federal Transit Brekhus council member for Ward 1. My comments and Administration and RTC is the Project Sponsor. Due to staffing questions are my own.·And not really experienced and travel limitations, FTA typically is not able to attend all with the National Environmental Policy Act project meetings. The RTC received authorization to begin procedures, so hope I'm making comments that are project development activities, including the environmental germane to the topic here today. review process, for the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project from FTA through the Small Starts Program. I understand that this is, as Amy said, Authorization to enter into project development grants RTC fundamentally a transit project and that the FTA is pre-award authority to incur costs for certain activities, which the lead agency, and I was wondering if there was then are eligible for future grant reimbursement. With the anyone here from the FTA.·I didn't see an approval of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension introduction from someone from the FTA. Project FONSI by FTA, the Project will be eligible to proceed to ROW acquisition and construction.

I also heard that the FTA has allowed RTC to facilitate this process. I'm just wondering if there's any agreements that are on the website where we could see about that relationship that's been created between FTA and the RTC about this process.

And I'm a Reno city council member. I'm not an RTC member, so maybe there's something I've missed. 16 16-2 Jenny The website documents also show on the logos the The Interlocal Cooperative Agreement approved by the City of

64 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Brekhus University of Nevada Reno's logo and the City of Reno on July 26, 2017, authorizes RTC to construct this Reno's website. I'm wondering if any partnerships, Project. Furthermore, the locally approved alternative was documents have been entered into about those recommended for approval by the Reno City Council on entities' roles in this project.·There may be October 7, 2015. One of the primary purposes for the NEPA something I'm not aware of. process is to involve as many stakeholders as possible in the planning process. To this end, the RTC has engaged, and continues to engage, all interested stakeholders, including, but not limited to, public agencies—such as the City of Reno, the State of Nevada—the University of Nevada, Reno, and others—private land owners, local residents, and the general public. These stakeholders help to refine alternatives and ensure the Project achieves its stated purpose and need. Because the City of Reno and UNR are the other government agencies working the RTC on the project Technical Advisory Committee and have jointly participated in community outreach activities related to the project, their logos have been included on some project materials. 16 16-3 Jenny I'm also interested in knowing if with respect to the There are no agreements between the RTC and any other Brekhus disposition of the properties that are identified to be person, organization, or agency about the use of potential acquired, if there's any agreements, verbal, written, excess property. The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to or otherwise, about how those properties will be initiate right-of-way acquisition activities until the environmental disposed upon the project's completion. review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. Because I am noting on the right-of-way take on If an FTA-funded project in Nevada has excess property, any the east side of Virginia Street between Eighth and action regarding use or disposition of the property would be Ninth Street, that it's a very shallow take.·It's not a guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and scale document, so it's hard to tell in the project Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA description the depth of that take, but it's a very regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate small percentage of that block. Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to,

other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA So I'm wondering then, understanding disposition Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. of properties, where that property is to go to and If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists planned to go, in particular, because that property upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of block that will be acquired backs up to a city alley allowable alternative methods to address the property in right-of-way and then backs up to a half block Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the owned by the University of Nevada, Reno. disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive I understand where the University of Nevada, Reno public outreach program for all transportation planning Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 65 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number has shown in documents characterizations of activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan. development on that half block that is identified as historically significant, and I've seen iterations and RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- renderings from the University of Nevada, Reno transportation use on the property is premature, pending materials showing at there will be a building completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities footprint from where this property take is to the and private individuals have developed land use concepts, Center Street where the historic resources are.·So based on the publicly available Project design plans that can wondering, you know, concern about the impact to be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. the historic resources, understanding that there will These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. be excess land to dispose of. 16 16-4 Jenny Wondering about the characteristics of the The northbound station between 8th Street and 9th Street is Brekhus multimodal center that's shown on that block in proposed to include benches, coverings, ample pedestrian respect to the Fourth Street/Center transit system space, real-time bus arrival information, bicycle and bicycle that's about four blocks away. share parking, and other amenities to improve the transit experience and facilitate transfers and multimodal access. The And let me see.·Wondering if there are cross- station will be equipped to accommodate boardings and section profiles between the mini stations and the alightings for the RAPID, Route 7, and UNR shuttle buses. The full bus stop stations.·Didn't see that in the RTC 4TH STREET STATION transfer terminal at 4th Street document. and Center Street is the largest terminal in the RTC system. It accommodates 23 routes with an average of 8,251 boardings

and 7,842 alightings per day (over 16,000 riders per day). It also includes electric-bus charging infrastructure, climate- controlled waiting areas, customer service, restrooms, and break rooms for transit vehicle operators.

The Project upgrades the three mini stations, or regular fixed- route bus stations, in Midtown to full-size stations. The existing bus stops do not have adequate seating, cannot accommodate level boarding, do not provide real-time bus arrival information, are not ADA accessible, nor can they offer other standard BRT functions.

66 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 16 16-5 Jenny And the final comment is understand that we As part of this Project, sidewalks will be brought into ADA Brekhus operate in a transit—federal transit environment compliance along South Virginia Street. For more information that focuses on fiscally constraint.·The most on ADA accommodations as part of this Project, please see important thing to me is clearing up the Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3, Multimodal Access to Transit Stops. noncompliances on South Virginia Street in the south section of the project because the City of Reno is under an ADA complaint that has received temporary reprieve. 16 16-6 Jenny But presuming that, you know, the federal funds Comment noted. A combination of local funds and federal Brekhus aren't available because we live in a fiscally funds will be used to complete the Project, including Surface constrained environment, I have been assured that Transportation Block Grant monies, Congestion Mitigation Air local funds are available for that project.·And I'm Quality funds, and local fuel and sales tax funding. Additional just wondering also the characteristics of the information on Project costs are included in the FONSI. funding project in different scenarios of federal funding. So thank you very much.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 67 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 17 17-1 Sara DePaoli Hi. My name is Sara DePaoli. I am here The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way representing Action. We have a few similar acquisition activities until the environmental review process is questions. Ours is particular to the corner of complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential Virginia and Eighth Street, so from what it looks like remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- on the plans, it looks like that the current plans do funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action not utilize the entire plot, and because of the Reno regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided Housing Project, with the issues we're having with by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, displaced individuals that are currently living in Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA some of those areas, would there be an opportunity Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These for us to put new low-income housing on those laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the plots that are not being used fully. Thank you. property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Additionally, the RTC has initiated an Affordable Housing Study to identify strategies it can undertake to support the development of affordable housing near transit. This study will focus primarily on BRT station areas and other high-frequency, high-ridership routes. It will include market analysis, station area planning, and extensive coordination with both public and private stakeholders interested in affordable housing.

68 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Brokers.·We are a tenant at 10 East Ninth Street, between 9th Street and 10th Street was examined, but and we have questions about the positioning of the eliminated from consideration because of its impacts to the multimodal hub between Eighth and Ninth Streets University of Nevada, Reno Historic District and its as there are other adjacent blocks, specifically incompatibility with local planning documents. For more between Ninth Street and Tenth Street, which are information on how and why this location was eliminated presently owned by the university, which is a green during the project's alternative development process, please space, not specifically a park space, so it wouldn't see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered but be specifically, we believe, excluded from use as a Dismissed from Evaluation. transit—in a transit use. 18 18-2 Jeffrey Loftin We have questions.·Are there—has there been an Placing the transit station on northbound Virginia Street inquiry about the cost of acquiring only a depth of between 9th Street and 10th Street was examined, but take as would be necessary for the multimodal hub eliminated from consideration because of its impacts to the to be positioned between Ninth and Tenth Street University of Nevada, Reno Historic District and its on the east side of Virginia rather than between incompatibility with local planning documents. Because this Eighth and Ninth? alternative was eliminated during the alternative's screening process, no further analysis of this alternative is required. 18 18-3 Jeffrey Loftin Further, has a study of economic impact been done Economic impacts to the community include acquisitions and specifically regarding the taking of these properties displacements of businesses, residential housing, and parking. between Eighth and Ninth Street. Benefits to the community include the economic benefits gained by having reliable transportation to get to work, school, or shopping through improved transit access and travel times, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and connectivity, and improved safety. Combined, these improvements will provide better access to jobs, economic benefits, educational opportunities, essential services, and activity centers along the corridor. For more details on community impacts and ways in which the RTC will minimize and mitigate community impacts during all phases of the Project, please see Appendix I, Environmental Justice and Community Disruption Technical Memorandum, in the EA.

RTC conducted a benefit-cost analysis for this Project that assessed projected savings related to travel time, vehicle operation costs, crash reductions, and vehicle emission reductions. This assessment confirmed that the benefits to the community as a result of the Preferred Alternative will greatly outweigh the Project costs. Using a 3-percent discount rate (2016 USD), the benefit-cost ratio for the Project is 2.44. Using

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 69 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number a 7-percent discount rate, the benefit-cost ratio is 1.66. 18 18-4 Jeffrey Loftin Also, is a hub between Eighth and Ninth Street the Stations are located to provide the best connections to major most cost effective way to provide a direct activity centers along the Virginia Street corridor. The station connection between the existing routes in Midtown, location on North Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th downtown, and UNR? Street was chosen because it provides access to the University of Nevada, Reno campus and helps to bridge the Also, would a hub between Ninth and Tenth also barrier created by I-80 between the University and Downtown provide a direct connection as needed between Reno. existing routes and UNR. Placing the transit station on northbound Virginia Street between 9th Street and 10th Street was examined, but eliminated from consideration because of its impacts to the University of Nevada, Reno Historic District and its incompatibility with local planning documents. For more information on how and why this location was eliminated during the Project's alternative development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Evaluation. 18 18-5 Jeffrey Loftin Also, how many businesses exactly and how many The Project will displace seven businesses and potentially 79 tenants exactly will be displaced if RTC takes the residential units, including two motels with 58 units, and 21 proposed properties between Eighth and Ninth residential units in two apartment buildings. Street.

70 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 18 18-6 Jeffrey Loftin Further, has anyone employed by NSHE or UNR The placement of the station on northbound Virginia Street suggested the taking of lands between Eighth and between 8th Street and 9th Street was determined through the Ninth Street will benefit the university in any alternatives screening process, which is documented in way?·Also, have there been conversations by Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. email, phone, or otherwise that indicate that UNR will have access to these properties after the taking The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way and the RTC use. acquisition activities, including assessing and addressing potential business relocations, until the environmental review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA-funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 71 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number aspect of the Orr Ditch is the fact that it delivers Resources. water out to Red Hawk.·It flows for over half a mile in piping and ditch and is covered. Furthermore, it is not uncommon that modifications to historically significant resources, including those described by He said his company has routinely reviewed and the commenter, occur when they are not a part of a project approved properly engineered plans to cover the that is federally funded and required to follow the NEPA Orr Ditch, and that that in no way, in the owners of process. the Orr Ditch's factual understanding, impacts the historic value of the ditch in any way. He said that it can run through pipe, covered or uncovered, and that the RTC is presently working on a project at McCarran and Pyramid where they're doing exactly that and covering the Orr Ditch in another location. 18 18-8 Jeffrey Loftin We cannot be moved as a business.·We are the The placement of the station on northbound Virginia Street only specific private business that 100 percent of between 8th Street and 9th Street was determined through the our customers are University of Reno—University alternatives screening process, which is documented in of Nevada, Reno students, and we believe that the Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. specific taking of property, with no other alternative for a similar proximity for our business to the Comment noted as it pertains to potential business relocation. university, will not only terminally impact our The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way business, but that it will fiscally and financially acquisition activities, including assessing and addressing directly benefit the university, which is obviously potential business relocations, until the environmental review the root of many of our concerns as the use of this process is complete. All relocations will be done in a manner property is not described beyond the taking of consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real multimodal hub. Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E.

72 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 18 18-9 Jeffrey Loftin Further, have any of the engineers seen or drawn The station in question is proposed to include benches, or sketched, are there in existing RTC documents coverings, additional pedestrian space, real-time bus arrival proposals or discussions of using this space where information, and other amenities to improve the transit there's already an existing bus stop between Ninth experience and facilitate transfers and multimodal access. and Tenth to use perhaps an expanded use in the Providing such a transit station facility requires more right of public right-of-way with a tiny, small, minimalistic way than is available on either block of northbound Virginia amount of taking from existing space on the edge Street between 8th Street and 10th Street. Obtaining this of the Manzanita Bowl area.·Thank you. space at the existing bus stop location north of 9th Street would impact the UNR Historic District, the Orr Ditch—which would result in an impact to a potential water of the U.S.—and would not be consistent with existing planning documents, including both the City of Reno University of Nevada Regional Center Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. Therefore, the alternative that was presented to the public and selected as part of the Preferred Alternative presents new design elements on the block between 8th Street and 9th Street. For more information on why the location along northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street was selected over the location north of 9th Street, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. Because this alternative was eliminated during the alternatives development process, no further analysis of this alternative is required. 19 19-1 Kirk Johnson Hi. My name is Kirk Johnson, and I had just a quick The proposed center median is included as part of the Project observation with regard to the medians that are— to improve transit travel times and enhance traffic and the median that is going to go in between Vassar pedestrian safety. The median is essential to accommodate and Liberty. In looking at the maps, it's obvious that the public's desire for a "less auto-centric" environment by that's going to have some significant adverse providing the widest possible sidewalks, improving safety, and impacts on the businesses along those routes, as minimizing the loss of curbside parking. These improvements there's many of those businesses are going to have will make alternative modes of travel—taking transit, walking, no left turn access. It's going to be extremely or bicycling—to and from retail locations along the corridor inconvenient. faster, safer, and easier for all roadway users.

I didn't see any analysis in the EA as to the Two studies on the economic impacts of raised medians were financial impact or the adverse impact on those completed for the Utah Department of Transportation and the businesses of the median between Vassar and Texas Department of Transportation. Both studies indicated Liberty. that local businesses experienced little to no change in sales after the installation of raised medians. These studies are available on the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 73 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Project website: http://virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com/document-archive/.

Left-turn opportunities to promote traffic circulation and business access will be provided in this area at the Center Street/Mary Street roundabout, at West Taylor Street and St. Lawrence Street for northbound traffic, at the signalized California Avenue intersection for northbound traffic, and at Cheney Street for southbound traffic. 19 19-2 Kirk Johnson Also, I noticed that there was an extended left turn Based on comments received on the EA, small changes have lane going northbound on Virginia at Liberty, which been made to the Preferred Alternative, including reducing the didn't seem consistent with the less auto-centric length of the northbound left-turn lane at the intersection of environment that they're trying to advocate, and it South Virginia Street and Liberty Street that in turn seemed to me as though that could be shortened accommodates left-turn access from southbound South and some left turn access onto Stewart and into Virginia Street to Stewart Street. The proposed center median some businesses in that vicinity could be added is included as part of the Project to improve transit travel times and to at least lessen the impact of the medians in and enhance traffic safety. The median is essential to that area. Thank you. accommodate the public's desire for a "less auto-centric" environment by providing the widest possible sidewalks, improving safety, and minimizing the loss of curbside parking. 20 20-1 Greg Kukuk Greetings. I have a solution to save the RTC Placing the transit station on northbound Virginia Street millions of dollars regarding the Virginia Street Bus between 9th Street and 10th Street was examined, but RAPID Transit extension project. eliminated from consideration because of its impacts to the University of Nevada, Reno Historic District and its Specifically, between Eighth and Ninth Street on incompatibility with local planning documents. For more Virginia Street, I propose the RTC to relocate the information on how and why this location was eliminated proposed RTC Bus RAPID Station immediately during the Project's alternative development process, please north of Ninth Street where there is sufficient see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered but vacant land that is owned by the university. Dismissed from Evaluation.

This would alleviate having to acquire tax paying private property owners.·Most of these have

74 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number existing businesses which would have to be relocated. By moving the bus RAPID station north of Ninth Street, the RTC will save millions of dollars on this project.

Attached is a Washoe County Quick Map with a template on it showing sufficient vacant land for this project.

I hope you will consider my proposal.·Thank you. 21 21-1 Mark I'm a UNR student and I feel that the placement of Financial impacts to the University were not a criterion used as Mazurowski the modal in—for the actual placement essentially part of the alternatives evaluation process. The placement of wipes out that block of businesses in between I the transit station on this block was determined through the think it's Ninth. alternatives development process outlined in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. Businesses So my question is do you think UNR will benefit subject to relocation with receive relocation assistance in financially from the destruction of Textbook accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Brokers?· Because I'm a university student, and Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 75 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number Textbook Brokers is the only competitor against the university.

And so they want to place a bus modal hub thing, a bus station, essentially a bus stop on top of the only competitor, when there's a perfectly usable space just down the block. 21 21-2 Mark And their only reason against not using it, RTC, is Placing the transit station on northbound Virginia Street Mazurowski the historicity of the Orr Ditch, which we've between 9th Street and 10th Street was examined, but contacted the owners and the only historic value to eliminated from consideration because of its impacts to the the ditch is the fact that it moves water from A to B University of Nevada, Reno Historic District, not the Orr Ditch, and that the medium through which that movement and its incompatibility with local planning documents. For more occurs means nothing. information on how and why this location was eliminated during the Project's alternative development process, please So if they can cover it a little bit and move that bus see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered but station a little bit down, they save $12 million in Dismissed from Evaluation. destruction of community property, taking all that stuff down, and then developing new property, when they could just, $1 million, scooch that down, take 12 feet off the Orr Ditch, cover it up.

76 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-1 Jeffrey Loftin Please enter the following a public comment for the Comment noted. All acquisitions and relocations that are a purpose of response to the environmental result of this Project will comply with all federal and state assessment: regulations, including the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, My Name is Jeffrey Loftin. I operate Textbook and FTA Circular 5010.1E. Any discussion regarding Brokers, a college retail store at 10A E 9th Street, acquisitions and relocation would occur upon completion of the Reno, NV where my only customers are students NEPA process. of the University of Nevada, Reno. We are a private business that sells and rents new and used The following information is excerpted from Relocation: Your college books to students. Rights and Benefits as a Displaced Person Under the Federal Relocation Assistance Program: A) We provide a low cost alternative to the nineteen thousand plus students of UNR, A relocation counselor from the Agency will contact and however this means that customers often interview the displacee to find out the needs and replacement purchase with us in lieu of purchasing from the site requirements and estimate the time needed to accomplish Nevada owned bookstore. RTC is advancing the move. Relocation services and payments will be explained what they are describing as a community in accordance with the displacee’s eligibility. It is important to preferred alternative where a multimodal hub is explain to the counselor any anticipated problems. During the projected to be built between 8th and 9th Street initial interview, the relocation counselor will ask many on the east side of North Virginia Street in questions to determine the displacee’s financial ability to Reno, NV, across the street from the current accomplish the move, including lease terms and other UNR campus. There is already a RTC bus obligations. Stop less than 200 feet away on the same north-bound side of the street, Route7 Stop ID The counselor will help determine the need for outside 339. specialists to plan, move, and reinstall personal property. The counselor will identify and resolve any issues regarding what is real estate and what is personal property to be relocated. The counselor will explore and provide advice as to possible sources of funding and assistance from other local, State, and Federal agencies. In addition, as needed, the relocation counselor will maintain listings of commercial properties and farms.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 77 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number B) If RTC proceeds with this plan, they will The goal is to achieve a successful relocation back into the purchase, and demolish the building where community. As described in the Relocation booklet, eligible Textbook Brokers does business, and thereby business relocation services and reimbursements may include destroy Textbook Brokers UNR. We are a the following: tenant at 10A E 9th Street and we have a few  Actual, reasonable moving expenses and related essential questions as our business cannot be expenses, such as personal property losses, as applicable relocated—we have generated the goodwill of  Reasonable expenses incurred in searching for a the student body by being positioned in the replacement property not to exceed $2,500 location most convenient to campus and to interstate 80 and by adhering to our company's  Related eligible moving expenses that are actual, strict business plan and best practices with reasonable and necessary to: Connection to available regards to location and operations. nearby utilities, Professional services to determine a sites’ suitability or Impact fees or one-time assessment for utility

usage We have looked tirelessly and fruitlessly for other physical locations from which to service our UNR  Re-establishment payment for expenses incurred in customers and none exist. The University may relocation and re-establishing the enterprise to a purchase properties very quickly and above market replacement site, not to exceed a $25,000 rates, but there is no where else for Textbook  Fixed payment, as eligible, in lieu of actual moving Brokers to lease space and serve our community expenses, personal property losses, searching expense, effectively. and re-establishment expenses, not to exceed $40,000.

Questions: 1. Is RTC aware that Textbook Brokers, as a tenant, simply is seeking some assurances that we will have the opportunity to continue to rent in this block at market rates? 22 22-2 Jeffrey Loftin 2. Will RTC provide opportunities for Textbook The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way Brokers to co-development and partner with RTC in acquisition activities until the environmental review process is this specific block after any taking or purchasing of complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential lands? remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A,

78 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 79 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-4 Jeffrey Loftin 4. Will RTC please provide an alternative for The EA presents the No-Build Alternative, which would not community review that would not require the taking have any right-of-way impacts. An alternate location for the of the properties on the east side of Virginia transit station near 9th Street was evaluated during the between 8th Street and 9th Street? alternatives development process. This alternative would have placed the northbound transit station north of 9th Street. This alternative was eliminated because of its impacts to historically significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing local plans. An online survey was conducted as part of the outreach process. Results of the survey indicated that 82 percent of the more than 300 respondents supported the Preferred Alternative station location between 8th Street and 9th Street instead of the alternative that maintained the existing configuration at this location. For more information on alternatives developed and why alternatives were or were not carried forward in the project development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 22 22-5 Jeffrey Loftin We also have some concerns about the The No-Build Alternative presented in the EA would not have relationship between RTC and their procurement of any right-of-way impacts. The alternative to place the Federal funds for this project, and the ways in northbound transit station north of 9th Street was analyzed which that may dovetail with UNR's masterplan as during the alternatives evaluation process and eliminated presented to the Reno City Council, of which because of its impacts to historically significant resources and members are also RTC board members. its lack of consistency with existing local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further analysis is required. For 1. RTC engineers have said in one on one more information on alternatives developed and why discussions that a multi-modal hub could be alternatives were or were not carried forward in the project engineered as an expansion of Route7 Stop development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, 339, therefore as a response to this question Alternatives Development Process. will RTC please show a simplistic rendering of the northbound portion of the multimodal hub RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- being positioned on the Northeast corner of transportation use on the property is premature, pending Virginia and 9th Street? completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC.

80 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-6 Jeffrey Loftin 2. RTC engineers have explained that some Bus pullouts need to be designed to accommodate the full standards exisit for length of turnout required length of the transit vehicles ensuring no part of the vehicle for a multimodal hub where the rapid busses extends into travel lanes, plus the additional space needed for transit riders would exchange with UNR shuttle the vehicle to safely enter and exit the pullout. For the riders: according to these standards, what is northbound transit station between 8th Street and 9th Street, the minimum length of turnout that would be the pullout must accommodate the RTC RAPID bus, the RTC approvable? regular fixed-route RIDE bus, the UNR shuttle, potential other RTC services, and lane length at the traffic signal to accommodate a transit queue jump. To provide space for all of these features, it was determined that the entire length of the block will be needed. Furthermore, additional right-of-way is needed to accommodate the design elements of the preferred Alternative, including bike lanes, sidewalks compliant with the ADA standards, street trees, pedestrian lighting, a southbound bus-only lane, two northbound and one southbound general- purpose travel lanes, northbound and southbound RAPID stations, and a center median with left-turn pocket. 22 22-7 Jeffrey Loftin 3. RTC personnel have indicated in renderings The alternative to place the northbound transit station north of that there the entire space between 8th and 9th 9th Street was analyzed during the alternatives evaluation is exactly enough to allow the positioning of a process and eliminated because of its impacts to historically multimodal hub on the east side of Virginia significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing street between 8th (North) and 9th, therefore local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further will RTC please indicate on a drawing exactly analysis is required. For more information on alternatives where this same layout would end if the developed and why alternatives were or were not carried multimodal hub was shown on the north east forward in the project development process, please see corner of Virginia and Ninth Street? Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 22 22-8 Jeffrey Loftin 4. University of Nevada Reno spokespeople have The alternative to place the northbound transit station north of spoken extensively in Reno City Council 9th Street was analyzed during the alternatives evaluation Meetings regarding the "University Gateway process and eliminated because of its impacts to historically District" area or overlay, and members of the significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing Reno City council sit on the board of RTC, local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further therefore has RTC opted out of showing an analysis is required. For more information on alternatives expansion of route 7 stop ID:339 because it does developed and why alternatives were or were not carried not align with the University Master Plan? forward in the project development process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 81 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-9 Jeffrey Loftin 5. RTC may still be shaping their specific funding Cost estimations were done for the Project as a whole; request for FTA with reguards to the Virginia therefore, specific costs related to individual actions/parcels Street Rapid Expansion Project, therefore will are not available. However, the total right of way acquisition, RTC please provide as a percentage of the relocation, demolition, clearing, and earthwork portions for the total FTA funding request, what percentage of entire Project total 59 percent of the total Project cost, and are the project funding is presently being projected shown on page 10 of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit for the taking of and development of lands Extension Project FONSI. between 8th Street and 9th Street in Reno? 22 22-10 Jeffrey Loftin 6. University of Nevada Reno's master plan Multiple criteria were used as part of the alternatives screening (Availabe online at process, including, but not limited to, evaluating an https://www.unr.edu/Documents/provost/provos alternative's ability to meet the Project's purpose and need, ts-office/forms/UNR-CMPU-2014-Final- and its consistency with existing planning documents, SCREEN%20UPDATED.pdf) on the cover including both the City of Reno University of Nevada Regional page, as well as on pages 2, 41, 58, and other Center Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. For more pages of that document, shows a multi-modal information on alternatives developed and why alternatives hub very similar to the hub described as the were or were not carried forward in the project development "community alternative" by RTC, however process, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives since the Unversity Master plan predates the Development Process. selection of the community alternative for the stop at the southwest corner of UNR campus, RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- does RTC acknowledge that the multi-modal transportation use on the property is premature, pending hub with RTC is advancing has been completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities influenced by the UNR master plan? and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 22 22-11 Jeffrey Loftin 7. If Route 7 Stop 339 were to be selected as a The alternative to place the northbound transit station north of community preferred alternative to the location 9th Street was analyzed during the alternatives evaluation 200 feet to the south, as an expansion of an process and eliminated because of its impacts to historically existing stop, rather than a taking of seven significant resources and its lack of consistency with existing private properties with required demolition and local plans. Because this alternative was eliminated, no further redevelopment, what dollar figure or at least analysis is required. For more information on alternatives what portion of the total Virginia Street Rapid developed and why alternatives were or were not carried Expansion budget would such a hub require for forward in the project development process, please see aquisition and construction of a hub? Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

82 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-12 Jeffrey Loftin 8. Will RTC Washoe please provide all present Route 7 Stop 339 has averaged 34 daily boardings between current ridership data for Route 7 stop 339 for 2012 and 2018 (annual average daily boardings are shown 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012? below). Average daily Route 7 boardings at stop 339: Additionally will RTC please specifically provide 2012: 31 daily ridership projections for the first three 2013: 32 years of operation supporting the specific need 2014: 34 for a multimodal hub between 8th Street and 9th Street since the 4th Street station is 0.7 2015: 34 miles (14 minutes walking distance) and 2016: 33 additional facilities are projected northward on 2017: 34 campus to facilitate the interchange of RTC 2018 year to date: 38 and UNR shuttle riders? Transit station locations were strategically selected to maximize access to activity centers throughout the corridor. To this end, three RAPID stations are included as part of this Project along North Virginia Street—at 15th Street, College Avenue, and between 8th Street and 9th Street. The station between 8th Street and 9th Street provides transit access to the University of Nevada, Reno's Quad and Historic District. A station at this location also will help bridge the barrier created by I-80 between Downtown Reno and the University, both of which represent large activity centers. 22 22-13 Jeffrey Loftin 9. Hedi Gansert, now senatior [sic] in the Nevada One of the primary purposes for the NEPA process is to State Sentate [sic], was serving as the involve as many stakeholders as possible in the planning Executive Director of External Relations for the process. To this end, the RTC has engaged, and continues to University of Nevada Reno when the Reno City engage, all interested stakeholders including, but not limited Council approved the expansion of the to, public agencies—such as the City of Reno, the State of University Gateway District; this was during the Nevada—the University of Nevada, Reno, and others—private same time that Reno City councilwoman land owners, local residents, and the general public. These Neoma Jardon was serving as the chair of RTC stakeholders help to refine alternatives and help the Project Washoe, therefore was there any achieve its stated purpose and need. Only those alternatives communications between UNR staff and RTC that help meet the purpose and need are evaluated as Washoe staff (or boardmembers) or between alternatives as part of this Project. All alternatives considered RTC Washoe and Reno City Council staff as part of this Project are documented in the Virginia Street regarding an attempt to procure federal funding Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA. No alternatives, for a project to redevelop the University details, or components beyond what is documented in the EA Gateway District? were considered or are included in this Project.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 83 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC.

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number

84 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-14 Jeffrey Loftin 10. RTC Executive Director Lee Gibson and RTC Criteria used to evaluate the location of potential transit Director of Planning Amy Cummings attended stations included the location's ability to meet the Project's Reno City council meetings where UNR purpose and need and its ability to be consistent with existing President Marc Johnson and External Director local planning documents. Community input also was used to of External Relations Hedi Gansert were refine station locations. The station location between 8th Street present for public comment during Reno City and 9th Street was shown to the public at seven public council Meetings in 2016 reguarding [sic] the meetings, and 82 percent of respondents preferred the cross University Gateway District overlay expansion section that showed bus pullouts in this location. For more where a recurring theme from students and a information on how station locations were identified, please refrain from the City Mayor Hillary Schieve was see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development "removing blight" in Reno Process, and Chapter 5, Public Outreach and Agency (http://kunr.org/post/reno-developers-offer- Coordination. save-blighted-motels-rebuffed#stream/0), therefore is RTC's decision to advance what The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way they are describing as a "community preferred acquisition activities until the environmental review process is alternative" for a multimodal hub between 8th complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant and 9th Street rather than 200 feet away parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA-funded between 9th and 10th Street stem from or project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use support a Reno City Council initiative to or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state remove blight (for example the two hotels law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the which RTC is planning to take) or does this in State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E any way advance the goals of the University of Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and Nevada Reno to redevelop the city block regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, mentioned? University of Nevada Reno's including, but not limited to, other transportation-related uses, master plan provides images of ways that the joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on intersection of Virginia and 9th Street in Reno, the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines NV may be developed as pictured by that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA consultants, and these images match has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 85 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number closely what was presented in Reno City RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess council meetings and in RTC meetings with property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. vegetation in a median dividing the the north RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for and south bound lanes of Virginia Street, all transportation planning activities in accordance with the therefore does the UNR master plan which RTC Public Participation Plan. shows images of University Properties built flush against the multimodal hub align with RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- discussions either internal to RTC or transportation use on the property is premature, pending discussions between RTC board-members and completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities UNR staff or those promoting UNR's and private individuals have developed land use concepts development plan for the University Gateway based on the publicly available Project design plans that can District? be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 22 22-15 Jeffrey Loftin 11. Will RTC please comment on the economic There are no impacts expected to the businesses or properties impacts to the community, and also, on the west side of North Virginia Street between 8th Street separately, the economic benefits to UNR of and 9th Street as part of this Project. The benefits of the the elimination of the businesses on the west Project are established in the Purpose and Need and further side of North Virginia Street between 8th and explained and supported throughout the EA. For more 9th Street? information on properties directly impacted by this Project, please see Appendix H, Acquisitions and Relocations Technical Memorandum, in the EA. 22 22-16 Jeffrey Loftin 12. Will RTC please provide in response to these RTC public records are open to inspection and copying to the questions transcripts of any communications full extent required by Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter and or emails that exist between RTC and or 239—Public Records. Members of the public can contact employees and board members and any UNR RTC’s administrative offices to submit public records requests. or NSHE employees? 22 22-17 Jeffrey Loftin 13. Has RTC polled UNR students specifically in the A robust public outreach effort was conducted as part of this selection of the positioning of the multi-modal Project. This included numerous meetings with community hub? groups as well as the general public. In total, there were four community information meetings/community planning workshops held as part of this Project in which the general public, including UNR students and faculty, had the opportunity to provide input on all aspects of the Project. For more information about the public outreach activities completed as part of this Project, please see Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Public Outreach.

86 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-18 Jeffrey Loftin 14. Does an agreement exist between RTC and UNR Currently, no agreement exists between the RTC and the UNR for the interchange of passengers and the Shuttle service for the use of this station. The station is sized sharing of the use of the proposed multi-modal to accommodate both the RTC RAPID at the RAPID station platform? and the existing fixed-route RTC RIDE bus south of that station, as well as the RTC ACCESS paratransit. Depending on the RIDE, ACCESS, and UNR Shuttle schedules, the UNR Shuttle will be able to use the same curb space south of the RAPID station. 22 22-19 Jeffrey Loftin 15. Is there economic consideration to be given from The RTC has made no financial arrangements for the shared RTC to UNR or from UNR to RTC in exchange use of the proposed facilities, but has designed the facilities to for the shared use of these proposed facilities accommodate other transit uses. The station is sized to which with be partially funded with federal accommodate both the RTC RAPID at the RAPID station and money? If so will RTC please provide any the RTC fixed-route RIDE bus south of that station, as well as discussions or contract copies of such the RTC ACCESS paratransit. Depending on the RIDE, agreements for examples as they may exist ACCESS, and UNR Shuttle schedules, the UNR Shuttle will be elsewhere withing the RTC system as a able to use the same curb space south of the RAPID station. response to this question? RTC has informed stakeholders that planning for any non- transportation use on the property is premature, pending completion of the NEPA document. However, other entities and private individuals have developed land use concepts based on the publicly available Project design plans that can be downloaded at www.virginiastreetRAPIDextension.com. These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 22 22-20 Jeffrey Loftin 16. In deciding on this location for the multi-modal Criteria used to evaluate the location of potential transit hub is RTC aware of the number of customers stations included the location's ability to meet the Project's served by Textbook Brokers and the size of the purpose and need and its ability to be consistent with existing cost savings which this private company local planning documents. Community input also was used to provides to UNR students who would be refine station locations. For more information on how station potential transit riders? locations were identified, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. 22 22-21 Jeffrey Loftin 17. Will RTC please quantify the fare dollars which No specific fare collection estimates have been calculated for the proposed multi-modal hub stop specifically individual stations or station alternatives and would not be will generate as positioned at 9th street versus considered one of the criteria for the selection of the Preferred one block north? Alternative.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 87 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-22 Jeffrey Loftin 18. Will RTC please propose the closing of 10th The purpose and analysis of the closure of 10th Street is not Street to the Reno City council to improve the needed as part of the scope of this Project and this safety of the existing route 7 stop 339 stop and Environmental Assessment. In addition, the configuration of further facilitate development there? 10th Street does not affect the safety of existing or future RTC transit services. 22 22-23 Jeffrey Loftin 19. Is RTC covering the Orr ditch currently involved Although unrelated to this Project, the RTC confirms that in a project to cover the Orr ditch at Pyramid modifications have occurred to a previously modified portion of Highway? the Orr Ditch, where it crosses under the Pyramid Highway in the City of Sparks. On the same project, other portions of the Orr Ditch that had not been modified previously were preserved in place due to their historic significance as determined under the NEPA process for that project. 22 22-24 Jeffrey Loftin 20. Is covering the Orr ditch near rout 7 stop 339 a The Orr Ditch has not been identified or evaluated as a historic problem for the historic nature of the ditch? resource for this Project. For more information about historic resources, please see Chapter 3, Section 3.5, Historic Resources. 22 22-25 Jeffrey Loftin 21. Manzanita Hall is historic, but could a Criteria used to evaluate the location of potential transit stations multimodal hub be developed adjacent to included the location's ability to meet the Project's purpose and Manzanita hall that would not impact the hall need and its ability to be consistent with existing local planning (http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016 documents. Furthermore, community input also was used to /11/29/here-4-new-student-housing-projects- refine station locations. For more information on how station planned-unr/90264242/)--? locations were identified, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

88 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 22 22-26 Jeffrey Loftin 22. Is the Manzanita bowl a park by definition? The Manzanita Bowl is afforded Section 4(f) protections under Could UNR designate a strip of land deep federal law because it is a contributing element to the enough for the provision of a multimodal hub University of Nevada Reno Historic District. Placing the station on the western perimeter of the Manzanita at the western perimeter of the Manzanita Bowl would impact bowl? the historically significant resource.

Thank you, in advance for responding. Our Comment noted. Comments received on the EA have been concerns are that we want to be able to continue to documented and responded to in this section. do business. Please respond in writing and also feel free to contact me on my cell phone at 318- 464-3556 in addition to responding in writing.

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 89 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 23 23-1 Jeffrey Loftin To the Director of, and team members of, the Office The Preferred Alternative includes ROW acquisition on the of Planning and Environmental Analysis (FTA), east side of the street between 8th Street and 9th Street to accommodate the design elements of the Preferred Alternative An existing RTC (Washoe County, NV) bus stop is at this location. The segment of Virginia Street between 8th pictured below (blue polygon) adjacent to an open Street and 9th Street currently has four-foot-wide sidewalks on area. both sides of the street with buildings located at the back of the sidewalk in many locations and numerous ADA deficiencies.

This segment would be widened to accommodate the design Rather than simply expanding the existing bus stop: elements of the Preferred Alternative, including bicycle lanes, RTC Washoe is seeking federal funds to purchase sidewalks compliant with the ADA standards, street trees, and demolish the entire half block to the south, pedestrian lighting, a southbound bus-only lane, northbound comprising seven buildings which house nine bus turnout/queue jump lane, two northbound and one businesses and 80+ residential tenants (individuals southbound general-purpose travel lanes, northbound and and families) in order to add a multi-modal hub, one southbound RAPID stations, and center median with left-turn half-block to the south (see red polygon). pocket.

The northbound station between 8th Street and 9th Street would have a bus turnout that would accommodate the RAPID, RTC fixed-route RIDE, RTC ACCESS paratransit, and UNR campus shuttle buses. The bus turnout transitions to a queue jump lane to allow transit vehicles to exit the station and maintain traffic operations. This station will have covered seating for transit customers at shelters for RAPID and regular fixed-route/UNR shuttle service. Due to an anticipated high volume of pedestrian activity, this station will include sufficient areas for walking both in front of and behind the transit station, providing ADA access. Bicycle parking and potential bicycle share parking also will be provided at this station.

Providing for all the elements of the Preferred Alternative 90 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number requires more right of way than is available on either block of northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 10th Street. Obtaining this space at the existing bus stop location north of 9th Street and constructing a RAPID station potentially would create visual and other impacts to nearby Manzanita Hall, a contributing element to the UNR Historic District, and would not be consistent with existing planning documents, including both the City of Reno University of Nevada Regional Center Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. Therefore, the alternative that was presented to the public and selected as part of the Preferred Alternative is a new transit station and associated design elements on the block between 8th Street and 9th Street. For more information on why the location along northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street was selected over the location north of 9th Street, please see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 91 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 23 23-2 Jeffrey Loftin The cost of the taking of these lands is estimated at Property acquisitions, possible hazardous materials 18 million dollars. The cost of demolition would abatement, relocations, and site demolition for the entire require even more government funding. The dust, Project are all included in the cost estimates for the Project. noise, air impacts, and vibration associated with This includes the purchase of all properties needed, both demolishing these nine buildings (including asbestos partial and full acquisitions. See the Virginia Street Bus RAPID and lead paint) is substantial. This proposal will have Transit Extension Project Finding of No Significant Impact environmental, economic, social, and traffic impacts. (FONSI) for a list of all costs associated with the Project.

During construction, best management practices will be used to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts from construction activities. Detailed mitigation commitments about construction impacts to specific resources can be found in Table 6: Summary of Potential Impacts from and Mitigation Measures for Construction, located in the FONSI. 23 23-3 Jeffrey Loftin In one on one conversations, RTC engineers have The proposed transit station, sidewalk improvements, and said that the multi-modal hub could be engineered design elements of the Preferred Alternative described above to replace the existing stop, rather than requiring require more right of way than is available on either block of the taking of half a city block and the displacement northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 10th Street. of nine businesses, the displacement of 80+ Obtaining this space at the existing bus stop location north of resident families and individuals, and the 9th Street would impact the UNR Historic District and would demolition of nine buildings. not be consistent with existing planning documents, including both the City of Reno’s University of Nevada Regional Center The multi-modal hub design is shown requiring only Plan and the UNR Campus Master Plan. Therefore, the some 20 ft in depth of take (easily position-able alternative that was presented to the public and selected as adjacent to the current bus stop); the lots that RTC part of the Preferred Alternative is a new transit station and is proposing taking are approximately 140 ft in associated design elements on the block between 8th Street depth. and 9th Street. For more information on why the location along northbound Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street

was selected over the location north of 9th Street, please see Why would FTA fund the taking of 1.28 acres (nine Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Alternatives Development Process. businesses, 80+ residents) when the proposed

multi-modal hub project requires only 0.022 acres and vacant land is available? To provide sufficient space for this transit station and its proposed amenities, adjacent property will be acquired. Due to the proximity of buildings to the property line, these acquisitions will result in the removal of these buildings from the property and thus impair the use of the property. In accordance with the URA, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E the impairment of the use of the remaining property

92 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number requires the Project to acquire the full property rather than just a portion of it.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 93 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 23 23-4 Jeffrey Loftin We are inquiring as to whether the taking of these The Preferred Alternative includes acquisition of the properties lands will ultimately advance the plans of the local along North Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street university which has expressed an interest in to provide sufficient space for the new transit station, sidewalk expanding into this area. improvements, and associated design elements.

The RTC is not authorized by the FTA to initiate right-of-way acquisition activities until the environmental review process is complete. Site planning activities for the use of potential remnant parcels have not been conducted by RTC. If an FTA- funded project in Nevada has excess property, any action regarding use or disposition of the property would be guided by Nevada state law (NRS 37.260 and 37.270 and Article 1, Section 22 of the State Constitution) and FTA regulations (FTA Circular 5010.1E Chapter 4 J. Real Estate Disposition). These laws and regulations allow for multiple potential uses for the property, including, but not limited to, other transportation- related uses, joint development under FTA Circular 7050.1A, or direct sale on the open real estate market. If and when the RTC determines that excess property exists upon completion of a project, FTA has provided a list of allowable alternative methods to address the property in Circular 5010.1E. RTC would be required to address the disposition of excess property in the RAMP prepared specifically for this Project. RTC conducts a comprehensive public outreach program for all transportation planning activities in accordance with the RTC Public Participation Plan.

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number These concepts are not endorsed by RTC. 23 23-5 Jeffrey Loftin The university also operates a college textbook Comment noted. As described above, businesses impacted by store; and the only competing private discount property acquisition would be relocated in accordance with the textbook store would be demolished as part of this Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition proposal (north-most structure, red polygon). Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and FTA Circular 5010.1E. Comments received on the EA have been documented and Please contact me right away regarding the responded to in this section. questions that I have on this taking/project.

The RTC proposal for the specific area described above is found at this link: http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/wp- content/uploads/PDFS/Current%20Concept%20- %2015th%20to%20Maple.pdf Thank you!

Sincerely, Jeffrey Loftin 24 24-1 Greg Kukuk Greetings, Placing the transit station on northbound Virginia Street I have a solution to save the RTC millions of dollars between 9th Street and 10th Street was examined, but regarding the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit eliminated from consideration because of its impacts to the Extension project. Specifically, between 8th and University of Nevada, Reno Historic District and its 9th Street on Virginia St. incompatibility with local planning documents. For more I propose the RTC to relocate the proposed RTC information on how and why this location was eliminated Bus Rapid station immediately north of 9th Street during the Project's alternative development process, please where there is sufficient vacant land that is owned see Chapter 2, Section 2.3, Other Alternatives Considered but by the University. This would alleviate having to Dismissed from Evaluation. acquire tax paying private property owners. Most of these have existing businesses,which would have to be relocated. By moving the Bus RAPID Station north of 9th street, the RTC will save millions of dollars on this project.

Attached is a Washoe Count Quick Map with a

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 95 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number template on it showing sufficient vacant land for this project.

I hope you will consider my proposal. Thank You, Greg Kukuk

96 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number 25 25-1 Frankie Sue 1) Comment noted. The public meetings were DelPapa publicized through the Project website, social media, email blasts, newspapers, and mailers.

2) As stated in Chapter 1, Section 1.2, Purpose of the Project, of the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project EA, the purpose of this Project is to, “… increase transit ridership and connectivity, enhance 1 pedestrian safety, and improve accessibility to transit in the Virginia Street corridor.” To best 2 achieve this purpose, it was determined that transit service should be extended to connect the major destinations along the corridor, which includes the University of Nevada, Reno 3 to the north. Bus ridership statistics can be found on the RTC website at https://www.rtcwashoe.com/public- 4 transportation/resources-and-reports/. Statistics on ridesharing at the University are not available at this time.

3) Currently, the bus boardings around the University itself average 3,078 per day. We have a volunteer bus pass program with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) students called the Wolf Pass. From July 2016 through June 2017, 40,581 student trips utilized this UNR pass to ride the bus. Of course, usage is highest during the fall and spring semesters. Any student who used cash or any other form of RTC pass would not be identifiable in the ridership data.

The current ridership is hindered by the lack of ability to get a single ride from the UNR area to Midtown and beyond without a transfer. The bus system does have competition with ride hailing services locally such as Uber and Lyft.

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 97 Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

Comment Topic Commenter Comment Comment Response Number Number This proposed extension allows for a single bus trip that will be more competitive to the ride hailing services and reduce the amount of cars/congestion being requested to the UNR area.

4) All the improvements described above also are expected to improve emergency access in the study area. Ambulances and other emergency response vehicles will be able to use the less-congested transit-only lane. Comments received on the EA have been documented and responded to in this section.

98 Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI Appendix A: Environmental Assessment Public Comments and Responses

[THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY.]

Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project FONSI 99

Appendix B Copy of Public Comments

From: Environmental Assessment To: EA Comments Subject: New submission from Virginia Street Environmental Assessment Form Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 11:34:38 AM

Your Name

Alicia Barber

Your Email Address

[email protected]

Comment

My comment concerns the RTC's proposed acquisition of the five parcels on the east side of North Virginia Street between 8th Street and 9th Street, as delineated in Section 3.7: Acquisitions and Relocations of the Environmental Assessment. I have no objection to those acquisitions or to the demolition of the existing structures on those parcels, so long as protections are put in place regarding the subsequent uses of the east side of those parcels and the fate of the historic properties located just to the east of them.

The RTC plan specifies that the full extent of these parcels on North Virginia Street is not required by the RTC for the Preferred Alternative proposed improvements. I would like to propose that the remainder of these acquired parcels, the area not utilized for RTC-related construction, be subject to a public discussion regarding their disposition and use.

On their east side, these parcels immediately abut six historic Victorian houses located on the west side of North Center Street between 8th Street and 9th Street. Their addresses are 815, 821, 829, 847, and 895 North Center Street. Descriptions and photos of these houses may be viewed on the Reno Historical digital tour of the Historic University Gateway: http://renohistorical.org/tours/show/9

The University of Nevada, Reno has already expressed interest in building high density new construction in the Gateway District and replacing these historic houses with a new College of Business Building. It may be possible for the University to achieve the square footage they require by building on vacant portions of the RTC-acquired parcels, thereby allowing the historic houses of North Center Street to remain in place. I would very much encourage discussions along these lines, and any other discussions that would result in preservation IN PLACE of the historic portions of the Center Street houses (there have been non-historic additions to the west sides of many of these houses over time that could be removed to provide more space for new construction). Permitting these houses to remain in place would preserve one of the City of Reno's most significant and unique historic landscapes dating to the late 19th century.

The RTC can serve as a responsible public steward by initiating a public dialogue about the future disposition and use of the RTC-acquired parcels that involves the City of Reno's Historical Resources Commission (charged with protection of the city register-listed Mary Sherman House); the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office; the University of Nevada, Reno; and City of Reno government; as well as relevant community stakeholders including the Historic Reno Preservation Society. Thank you so much for soliciting comments regarding the Environmental Assessment.

Best,

Alicia Barber, PhD [email protected] 775-771-3975 aliciambarber.com From: Aria Overli To: EA Comments Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR VIRGINIA STREET BUS RAPID TRANSIT EXTENSION PROJECT Date: Monday, July 3, 2017 9:26:21 AM

Hello,

Please find my public comment for this project below:

I am representing ACTIONN, a non-profit which works with communities of faith to fight for issues of justice. Our primary campaign at the moment is around affordable housing, as Washoe County is facing a housing crisis, which must be stymied as quickly as possible before it becomes unsolvable.

It is my understanding that RTC plans to purchase a number of properties in order to complete this extension project, including a number of weeklies at the corner of Virginia and 8 th Street. While we recognize that RTC plans to do everything in their power to relocate any displaced residents, we are concerned about the destruction of low-income housing without the creation of new units. Additionally, the lack of available units leaves the concern that you will have nowhere to actually relocate these residents.

Currently, Reno is facing record-low vacancy rates, with less than 2% of units available to be rented. With your plan, some of the only housing available to low-income residents, no matter how sub-standard, will be destroyed with no alternative being created, only furthering our housing crisis, lowering the vacancy rate in Reno, and expanding homelessness.

Therefore, this plan presents a more than significant risk to the residents of Washoe County, which must be mitigated with either a comprehensive plan to ensure replacement of lost units for low-income residents or through an Environmental Impact Study to determine exactly what effect this move will have on the housing crisis in Reno.

We also understand that this project intends to purchase several plots of land in order to expand streets, create new bus stations and transportation hubs, and insert roundabouts. It is clear from the current plans that the entirely of the plots, while they must be purchased, will not be completely utilized for these projects. We recommend creating a comprehensive plan to ensure that these unused plots will be turned over to local governments with the express intent of using them to create low-income housing to replace the lost units from the destruction of weekly motels.

The creation of this plan would mitigate concerns over the furthering of our already severe housing crisis and would thus ensure that an EIS does not become necessary.

Thank you for your time.

-- In Justice,

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

From: Environmental Assessment To: EA Comments Subject: New submission from Virginia Street Environmental Assessment Form Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 1:16:35 PM

Your Name

Barrie Lynn

Your Email Address

[email protected]

Comment

As the chair of the Advisory Council to Historic Reno Preservation Society (HRPS), I am making this comment on behalf of HRPS. HRPS is a 501c3 nonprofit with over 1000 members dedicated to preserving history through education and advocacy. HRPS' primary concern about this project is the eminent domain taking of the properties on the east side of the 800 block of Virginia Street and the impact this may have on several historically significant nineteenth century homes that are located on the west side of the 800 block of Center Street and back up to the properties identified for being taken.

RTC has indicated that they only need about 60 frontage feet of these properties for their multi modal transportation hub, so the question remains, what happens to the remainder of the land? UNR has indicated that their new business college will be built here. Has it already been decided that the leftover land will be given to UNR?

HRPS recognizes the significance of the intact block of six nineteenth century homes on the 800 block of Center Street that will be left vulnerable to loss or removal by this project. HRPS feels that mitigation measures are needed to insure the protection of these important historical resources. Should UNR receive a gift of this land or a first option to purchase the remaining land left over from the transportation hub, we would like some assurance that the homes on Center Street will be preserved. There is nothing else like them in all of Reno. Their loss would be a community loss. From: Matley, Ted (FTA) To: Doug Maloy Subject: FW: RTC Washoe County, www.virginiastreetrapidextension.com, Problem Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:56:28 PM Attachments: image001.jpg image002.jpg

Doug please see the email below and the one to follow. We believe this should be considered as comment on the EA. Call if you wish to discuss.

Ted

From: Smith, Alexander (FTA) Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:42 PM To: Hughes, Candice (FTA) ; Blum, Megan (FTA) ; Nguyen, Mary (FTA) Cc: Tabachnick, Alan (FTA) ; VanWyk, Christopher (FTA) ; Paukowits, Dominique (FTA) ; Matley, Ted (FTA) Subject: RE: RTC Washoe County, www.virginiastreetrapidextension.com, Problem

This comment came to me in an email and via phone on June 30, before the end of the public comment period on the EA. I will follow up again asking Jeff to wait until the Project responds to all public comments before FTA can evaluate the response of the Project Sponsor.

Thanks, Alex

From: Hughes, Candice (FTA) Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:16 AM To: Blum, Megan (FTA) ; Nguyen, Mary (FTA) Cc: Tabachnick, Alan (FTA) ; VanWyk, Christopher (FTA) ; Paukowits, Dominique (FTA) ; Smith, Alexander (FTA) Subject: RE: RTC Washoe County, www.virginiastreetrapidextension.com, Problem

Hi Megan,

The Virginia Street BRT project is currently under Alexander Smith. If you would respond that you have forwarded the information and we will respond to him shortly.

Please contact me if you have any additional questions. Thank you.

Candice Hughes Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Transit Administration, Region 9 Los Angeles Metropolitan Office 888 South Figueroa, Suite 440 Los Angeles, CA, 90017-5467 (213) 629-8613

From: Blum, Megan (FTA) Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 10:56 AM To: Hughes, Candice (FTA) ; Nguyen, Mary (FTA) Cc: Tabachnick, Alan (FTA) ; VanWyk, Christopher (FTA) Subject: FW: RTC Washoe County, www.virginiastreetrapidextension.com, Problem

Hi R9,

We received an inquiry regarding a project in Nevada (see below). How do you recommend I proceed? Would you prefer I respond to Mr. Loftin with your or a R9 Comm Planner’s contact info? Or would you prefer I respond with different information?

Thanks for any assistance, Megan

From: Milford, Patrice (FTA) Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 9:31 AM To: Blum, Megan (FTA) Subject: FW: RTC Washoe County, www.virginiastreetrapidextension.com, Problem

Hi Megan,

I received a call from Mr. Loftin on Thursday, June 29th requesting assistance on the project information below. The directory shows it should go to someone in the Environmental Programs team.

Thanks,

Patrice K. Milford Administrative Management Specialist (CEP) Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Environment (TPE) 1200 New Jersey Avenue East Building, 4th Floor, Room E43-430 Washington, DC 20590 (202) 366-6385 (202) 493-2478 fax

From: Jeffrey Loftin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:53 PM To: Milford, Patrice (FTA) Subject: RTC Washoe County, www.virginiastreetrapidextension.com, Problem

To the Director of, and team members of, the Office of Planning and Environmental Analysis (FTA),

An existing RTC (Washoe County, NV) bus stop is pictured below (blue polygon) adjacent to an open area.

Rather than simply expanding the existing bus stop: RTC Washoe is seeking federal funds to purchase and demolish the entire half block to the south, comprising seven buildings which house nine businesses and 80+ residential tenants (individuals and families) in order to add a multi-modal hub, one half-block to the south (see red polygon).

Inline image 1

The cost of the taking of these lands is estimated at 18 million dollars. The cost of demolition would require even more government funding. The dust, noise, air impacts, and vibration associated with demolishing these nine buildings (including asbestos and lead paint) is substantial. This proposal will have environmental, economic, social, and traffic impacts.

In one on one conversations, RTC engineers have said that the multi-modal hub could be engineered to replace the existing stop, rather than requiring the taking of half a city block and the displacement of nine businesses, the displacement of 80+ resident families and individuals, and the demolition of nine buildings.

The multi-modal hub design is shown requiring only some 20 ft in depth of take (easily position-able adjacent to the current bus stop); the lots that RTC is proposing taking are approximately 140 ft in depth.

Why would FTA fund the taking of 1.28 acres (nine businesses, 80+ residents) when the proposed multi-modal hub project requires only 0.022 acres and vacant land is available?

We are inquiring as to whether the taking of these lands will ultimately advance the plans of the local university which has expressed an interest in expanding into this area. The university also operates a college textbook store; and the only competing private discount textbook store would be demolished as part of this proposal (north-most structure, red polygon).

Please contact me right away regarding the questions that I have on this taking/project. The RTC proposal for the specific area described above is found at this link: http://virginiastreetrapidextension.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFS/Current%20Concept%20- %2015th%20to%20Maple.pdf

Thank you! Sincerely, Jeffrey Loftin

Jeffrey Loftin BBA Solutions Inc. 10A E 9TH ST RENO, NV 89501 w. 775-284-9653 f. 775-284-9654 c. 318-464-3556 From: David Pritchett To: EA Comments Subject: EA comments, Virginia Streets Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 5:22:29 PM Attachments: Pritchett EA comments RTC July2017.pdf attached are my 2-pages of substantive comments for the subject EA on the memo

--David Pritchett tel. 805-403-8830 residence: 715 Sinclair Street (barely off the project area map!)

To: Federal Transit Administration (Lead Federal Agency under NEPA), via Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Local Sponsor) From: David Pritchett, resident of Project Area and actively involved project Stakeholder Date: 07 July 2017 Subject: Public Comments on Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Environmental Assessment (May 2017)

Thanks for the opportunity for public comment during this 30-day public review period. Comments here are presented generally by topic or substantive issue.

Purpose and Need for the proposed project deliberately omits bicyclist safety but includes pedestrian safety as an overall project goal, even though the project description features some bicycling safety and wayfinding features and bicyclist safety was promoted by RTC and requested by the public during the many public outreach and scoping meetings. The Environmental Assessment (EA) should include bicyclist safety as a co-equal goal to reflect this project intent during the abundant outreach and scoping by RTC. Indeed, on page 26

Throughout the EA, bicycling is widely under-represented or mis-described as a common mode of transportation of choice in the project area. The only mention seems to be on page 26 in reference to college students who ride, but apparently no other community group or sector is acknowledged in the EA. This omission appears to be a deficiency in the Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis for not recognizing that bicycling or walking may be the preferred or only mode of transportation for a substantial portion of the population in the project area. The project area is acknowledged as featuring an EJ community.

In the EA (also page 26 under Bicycle Infrastructure): "Bicycles are recognized as an inexpensive mode of transportation and the preferred method of travel for many college students in the area surrounding the university. Working with stakeholders, the study team studied project locations for sufficient right of way to fit dedicated bike lanes, shared transit and bicycle lanes, and wide sidewalks. Buffered bike lanes also were studied; however, this option was not advanced due to right-of-way constraints." This conclusion in the EA is faulty because it assumes that sidewalk widths are fixed in the project streetscape design.

The EA needs to analyze and disclose safety hazards for pedestrians and for how bicyclists in a dedicated lane along South Virginia Street will respond to the disappearance and morphing of the lane into a sharrow-marked shared traffic lane with motor vehicle traffic in the upper portion of South Virginia Street. Considering that research shows that bicyclists will ride where they feel sufficiently safe when confronted with automotive traffic, the street segments of sharrowed lanes likely will see more safety and other conflicts with the stated project purpose or goal for enhancing pedestrian safety. This omission from the EA clouds the stated Purpose and Need to improve pedestrian safety. The whole analysis in the EA needs to admit that when the bike lanes disappear, riders will choose the very wide sidewalks, and that human behavior has consequences for pedestrian safety and other effects.

The wayfinding or other bicycling routes are not described in substantial detail in the EA. The EA needs to describe how well, or not, these routes would be used by real bicyclists and if they offer a desired route or access to a destination, including the commercial corridor along South Virginia Street.

The EA also needs to disclose predicted traffic speeds after project completion, considering the melding of single automobiles, bicyclists, and in-lane bus stops or stations with or without bus pockets (if traffic speed figures are reported, those figures are not easy to find). That predicted speeds should be compared to the desired speeds or speed limit without the aid of traffic modeling and predictions.

The proposed project takes through eminent domain many parcels for the roundabout on South Virginia Street and a bus pocket along North Virginia Street. Nothing in the EA discloses the intention or available options by, presumably, RTC or City of Reno for what will be the disposition of these properties, when, surely, these local agencies do have laws and policies that govern the property disposition or range of options. The EA should acknowledge if the intention here is to convey these properties to University of Nevada or not.

An adequate mitigation for the loss of low-income housing along North Virginia Street, so the project results in less-than-significant impacts for adverse impacts to housing and EJ communities, would be to preserve in perpetuity as rental housing the other western half of that same block, and/or to assure an equal number of low-income housing is preserved in the Reno downtown area. Plenty of substandard housing (aka “weeklies”) and associated properties are available for this housing preservation and improvement effort to provide adequate mitigation under NEPA.

The parcel taken for the roundabout on the west side of South Virginia Street also should be developed by a public agency for affordable, low-income housing as an adequate mitigation measure. The number of lost residences and numbers of occupants also should be revealed in the EA, a glaring analytical omission. This adverse impact of permanently lost housing in the project area is significantly magnified and exacerbated as these properties currently provide relatively low cost housing for Environmental Justice communities in the project area.

Reductions in on-street car parking also is a substantial, if not significant adverse impact of the project that is not acknowledged in the EA. This can be adequately mitigated by converting the segment of Center Street, between Cheney St. and Liberty St., into a single traffic lane with diagonal car parking spots on the east side of Center Street, for a net gain in spaces on a block face with few if any driveways and nearly all with dining and visitor-serving properties. This design also will result in slower traffic speeds and greatly improve pedestrian safety for crossing Center Street (especially at Cheney Street), as drivers naturally speed up along those blocks as it currently is 2 one-way traffic lanes northbound. A bike lane also may fit in those blocks of Center Street, thereby also addressing the other bicycling issues and impacts mentioned elsewhere in these comments.

From: Environmental Assessment To: EA Comments Subject: New submission from Virginia Street Environmental Assessment Form Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 5:38:00 PM

Your Name

ESRNEV3, LLC c/o Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson

Your Email Address

[email protected]

Comment

ESRNEV3, LLC's comments to the Environmental Assessment were delivered by hand to RTC, mailed and sent via e-mail because they were too lengthy to place in this comment box. From: Teresa Stovak To: EA Comments Subject: Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project / ESRNEV3, LLC"s Environmental Assessment Comments Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 3:29:43 PM Attachments: Environmental Assessment Comments - ESRNEV3 070517.pdf

Dear RTC Engineering Department:

Transmitted herewith is Mr. Robertson’s letter of today’s date in the above- referenced matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any difficulties accessing the document. Thank you. ______Teresa W. Stovak, Legal Secretary Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600 Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 329-5600 Facsimile: (775) 348-8300 Email: [email protected] Please visit our Website at: www.nvlawyers.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. This message originates from the law firm of Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson. This message and any file(s) or attachment(s) transmitted with it are confidential, intended only for the named recipient, and may contain information that is a trade secret, proprietary, protected by the attorney work-product doctrine, subject to the attorney-client privilege, or is otherwise protected against unauthorized use or disclosure. This message and any file(s) or attachment(s) transmitted with it are transmitted based on a reasonable expectation of privacy consistent with ABA Formal Opinion No. 99-413. Any disclosure, distribution, copying, or use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient, regardless of address or routing, is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and completely delete the original message (which includes your deleted items folder). Personal messages express only the view of the sender and are not attributable to Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson. We advise you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter addressed herein. TRANSMISSION OF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE, AND RECEIPT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, AN ATTORNEY- CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.

July 19, 2017

Mr. Doug Maloy RTC Engineering Department Reno, Nevada

Re: Virginia Street Bus Rapid Transit Extension--RTC Project No. 21103 Public Comment

Dear Doug:

As I mentioned in our recent telephone conversation, I had no notice of this project. I will spare you the details as I thought I had previously requested notice in a prior conversation with Amy Cummings some time ago.

As you know, I recently requested the latest bus ridership numbers due to the fact that a previous review showed that bus ridership has been really weak in the University area. Unfortunately I have not received that information and I even stopped by the RTC ofﬁce in person to again request it. Also, I have been advised that there has been a large increase in ride sharing usage such as Uber at the University.

When there are special events at the University, traffic is already often backed up into the traffic lanes at the I-80 exit. I fear the proposed dedicated bus lanes will exacerbate this problem. And rush hour traffic has really increased as well.

I love the University very much but there has been a long time denial by University leaders of parking problems and other needs. This community is not bus oriented and I doubt if it will be for some time to come. In addition, I think resident needs should be considered including the ambulances that frequently leave and return to the nearby hospital.

I have spoken with FTA Region 9 Community Planner, Alexander Smith and I will copy him in this regard and request that this public comment be included in the review.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Cordially,

Frankie Sue DelPapa 1441 Alta Street Reno, Nevada 89503 775-322-1323 or [email protected]

C: Alexander Smith, Community Planner Region 9 FTA From: Environmental Assessment To: EA Comments Subject: New submission from Virginia Street Environmental Assessment Form Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 9:18:56 AM

Your Name

George Del Carlo

Your Email Address

[email protected]

Comment

I have one concern - please let me know how the preferred construction alternative will improve and not impede the traffic going to special events at UNR?

From: Environmental Assessment To: EA Comments Subject: New submission from Virginia Street Environmental Assessment Form Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 4:32:51 PM

Your Name

Jana Vanderhaar

Your Email Address

[email protected]

Comment

Thank you for the thorough EA report. While it's not required by Federal and State Law to provide stormwater infiltration for this project, the City of Reno does require commercial projects to include Low Impact Development (LID) measures in project (see http://www.reno.gov/government/departments/public-works/regional-stormwater-quality-management- program/developers-industry/low-impact-development-manual). Would RTC be open to incorporate some LID into the Virginia Street project to go beyond the minimum required? In particular, having large soil volumes for the designed street trees in chambers under the sidewalk that also capture storm water from the road (such as the Silva Cell system from Deeproot or similar, see http://www.deeproot.com/products/silva-cell/landing-page/silva-cell-2/overview). Thank you for taking this into consideration. From: Matley, Ted (FTA) To: Doug Maloy Cc: Smith, Alexander (FTA) Subject: FW: Comment on Environmental Assessment for Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:57:09 PM

Further comment

From: Smith, Alexander (FTA) Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:53 PM To: Matley, Ted (FTA) ; Hughes, Candice (FTA) Cc: Nguyen, Mary (FTA) ; Paukowits, Dominique (FTA) Subject: FW: Comment on Environmental Assessment for Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project

More on Reno comment from Jeffrey Loftin.

Alex

From: Jeffrey Loftin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobby Lorimer ; Amy Cummings ; Howard Riedl ; Paukowits, Dominique (FTA) ; Hernandez, Roxana (FTA) ; Smith, Alexander (FTA) ; Lira-Martinez, Elba (FTA) ; Milford, Patrice (FTA) Subject: Comment on Environmental Assessment for Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project

Please enter the following a public comment for the purpose of response to the environmental assessment:

If RTC proceeds with this plan, they will purchase, and demolish the building where Textbook Brokers does business, and thereby destroy Textbook Brokers UNR. We are a tenant at 10A E 9th Street and we have a few essential questions as our business cannot be relocated--we have generated the goodwill of the student body by being positioned in the location most convenient to campus and to interstate 80 and by adhering to our company's strict business plan and best practices with regards to location and operations.

We have looked tirelessly and fruitlessly for other physical locations from which to service our UNR customers and none exist. The University may purchase properties very quickly and above market rates, but there is no where else for Textbook Brokers to lease space and serve our community effectively.

Questions: 1. Is RTC aware that Textbook Brokers, as a tenant, simply is seeking some assurances that we will have the opportunity to continue to rent in this block at market rates? 2. Will RTC provide opportunities for Textbook Brokers to co-development and partner with RTC in this specific block after any taking or purchasing of lands? 3. Is RTC aware that by purchasing the block at 9th Street and Virginia, they will effectively present a multi-million dollar annual benefit to the state owned University of Nevada by removing the only private brick and mortar business which competes with the textbook sales of that University? 4. Will RTC please provide an alternative for community review that would not require the taking of the properties on the east side of Virginia between 8th Street and 9th Street?

1. RTC engineers have said in one on one discussions that a multi-modal hub could be engineered as an expansion of Route7 Stop 339, therefore as a response to this question will RTC please show a simplistic rendering of the northbound portion of the multimodal hub being positioned on the Northeast corner of Virginia and 9th Street? 2. RTC engineers have explained that some standards exisit for length of turnout required for a multimodal hub where the rapid busses transit riders would exchange with UNR shuttle riders: according to these standards, what is the minimum length of turnout that would be approvable? 3. RTC personnel have indicated in renderings that there the entire space between 8th and 9th is exactly enough to allow the positioning of a multimodal hub on the east side of Virginia street between 8th (North) and 9th, therefore will RTC please indicate on a drawing exactly where this same layout would end if the multimodal hub was shown on the north east corner of Virginia and Ninth Street? 4. University of Nevada Reno spokespeople have spoken extensively in Reno City Council Meetings regarding the "University Gateway District" area or overlay, and members of the Reno City council sit on the board of RTC, therefore has RTC opted out of showing an expansion of route 7 stop ID:339 because it does not align with the University Master Plan? 5. RTC may still be shaping their specific funding request for FTA with reguards to the Virginia Street Rapid Expansion Project, therefore will RTC please provide as a percentage of the total FTA funding request, what percentage of the project funding is presently being projected for the taking of and development of lands between 8th Street and 9th Street in Reno? 6. University of Nevada Reno's master plan (Availabe online at https://www.unr.edu/Documents/provost/provosts-office/forms/UNR-CMPU-2014- Final-SCREEN%20UPDATED.pdf) on the cover page, as well as on pages 2, 41, 58, and other pages of that document, shows a multi-modal hub very similar to the hub described as the "community alternative" by RTC, however since the Unversity Master plan predates the selection of the community alternative for the stop at the southwest corner of UNR campus, does RTC acknowledge that the multi-modal hub with RTC is advancing has been influenced by the UNR master plan? 7. If Route 7 Stop 339 were to be selected as a community preferred alternative to the location 200 feet to the south, as an expansion of an existing stop, rather than a taking of seven private properties with required demolition and redevelopment, what dollar figure or at least what portion of the total Virginia Street Rapid Expansion budget would such a hub require for aquisition and construction of a hub? 8. Will RTC Washoe please provide all present current ridership data for Route 7 stop 339 for 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012? Additionally will RTC please specifically provide daily ridership projections for the first three years of operation supporting the specific need for a multimodal hub between 8th Street and 9th Street since the 4th Street station is 0.7 miles (14 minutes walking distance) and additional facilities are projected northward on campus to facilitate the interchange of RTC and UNR shuttle riders? 9. Hedi Gansert, now senatior in the Nevada State Sentate, was serving as the Executive Director of External Relations for the University of Nevada Reno when the Reno City Council approved the expansion of the University Gateway District; this was during the same time that Reno City councilwoman Neoma Jardon was serving as the chair of RTC Washoe, therefore was there any communications between UNR staff and RTC Washoe staff (or boardmembers) or between RTC Washoe and Reno City Council staff regarding an attempt to procure federal funding for a project to redevelop the University Gateway District? 10. RTC Executive Director Lee Gibson and RTC Director of Planning Amy Cummings attended Reno City council meetings where UNR President Marc Johnson and External Director of External Relations Hedi Gansert were present for public comment during Reno City council Meetings in 2016 reguarding the University Gateway District overlay expansion where a recurring theme from students and a refrain from the City Mayor Hillary Schieve was "removing blight" in Reno (http://kunr.org/post/reno-developers- offer-save-blighted-motels-rebuffed#stream/0), therefore is RTC's decision to advance what they are describing as a "community preferred alternative" for a multimodal hub between 8th and 9th Street rather than 200 feet away between 9th and 10th Street stem from or support a Reno City Council initiative to remove blight (for example the two hotels which RTC is planning to take) or does this in any way advance the goals of the University of Nevada Reno to redevelop the city block mentioned? University of Nevada Reno's master plan provides images of ways that the intersection of Virginia and 9th Street in Reno, NV may be developed as pictured by consultants, and these images match closely what was presented in Reno City council meetings and in RTC meetings with vegetation in a median dividing the the north and south bound lanes of Virginia Street, therefore does the UNR master plan which shows images of University Properties built flush against the multimodal hub align with discussions either internal to RTC or discussions between RTC board-members and UNR staff or those promoting UNR's development plan for the University Gateway District? 11. Will RTC please comment on the economic impacts to the community, and also, separately, the economic benefits to UNR of the elimination of the businesses on the west side of North Virginia Street between 8th and 9th Street? 12. Will RTC please provide in response to these questions transcripts of any communications and or emails that exist between RTC and or employees and board members and any UNR or NSHE employees? 13. Has RTC polled UNR students specifically in the selection of the positioning of the multi-modal hub? 14. Does an agreement exist between RTC and UNR for the interchange of passengers and the sharing of the use of the proposed multi-modal platform? 15. Is there economic consideration to be given from RTC to UNR or from UNR to RTC in exchange for the shared use of these proposed facilities which with be partially funded with federal money? If so will RTC please provide any discussions or contract copies of such agreements for examples as they may exist elsewhere withing the RTC system as a response to this question? 16. In deciding on this location for the multi-modal hub is RTC aware of the number of customers served by Textbook Brokers and the size of the cost savings which this private company provides to UNR students who would be potential transit riders? 17. Will RTC please quantify the fare dollars which the proposed multi-modal hub stop specifically will generate as positioned at 9th street versus one block north? 18. Will RTC please propose the closing of 10th Street to the Reno City council to improve the safety of the existing route 7 stop 339 stop and further facilitate development there? 19. Is RTC covering the Orr ditch currently involved in a project to cover the Orr ditch at Pyramid Highway? 20. Is covering the Orr ditch near rout 7 stop 339 a problem for the historic nature of the ditch? 21. Manzanita Hall is historic, but could a multimodal hub be developed adjacent to Manzanita hall that would not impact the hall (http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/11/29/here-4-new-student-housing- projects-planned-unr/90264242/)--? 22. Is the Manzanita bowl a park by definition? Could UNR designate a strip of land deep enough for the provision of a multimodal hub on the western perimeter of the Manzanita bowl?

Thank you, in advance for responding. Our concerns are that we want to be able to continue to do business. Please respond in writing and also feel free to contact me on my cell phone at 318-464-3556 in addition to responding in writing.

Jeffrey Loftin

Jeffrey Loftin BBA Solutions Inc. 10A E 9TH ST RENO, NV 89501 w. 775-284-9653 f. 775-284-9654 c. 318-464-3556 From: Matley, Ted (FTA) To: Doug Maloy Cc: Smith, Alexander (FTA) Subject: FW: Comment on Environmental Assessment for Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Date: Sunday, July 9, 2017 5:00:00 PM

Further comment

More on Reno comment from Jeffrey Loftin.

Alex

From: Jeffrey Loftin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 4:57 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Bobby Lorimer >; Amy Cummings >; Howard Riedl >; Paukowits, Dominique (FTA) >; Hernandez, Roxana (FTA) >; Smith, Alexander (FTA) >; Lira-Martinez, Elba (FTA) >; Milford, Patrice (FTA) > Subject: Comment on Environmental Assessment for Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project

Please enter the following a public comment for the purpose of response to the environmental assessment:

We provide a low cost alternative to the nineteen thousand plus students of UNR, however this means that customers often purchase with us in lieu of purchasing from the Nevada owned bookstore. RTC is advancing what they are describing as a community preferred alternative where a multimodal hub is projected to be built between 8th and 9th Street on the east side of North Virginia Street in Reno, NV, across the street from the current UNR campus. There is already a RTC bus Stop less than 200 feet away on the same north-bound side of the street, Route7 Stop ID 339. If RTC proceeds with this plan, they will purchase, and demolish the building where Textbook Brokers does business, and thereby destroy Textbook Brokers UNR. We are a tenant at 10A E 9th Street and we have a few essential questions as our business cannot be relocated--we have generated the goodwill of the student body by being positioned in the location most convenient to campus and to interstate 80 and by adhering to our company's strict business plan and best practices with regards to location and operations.

Questions:

1. Is RTC aware that Textbook Brokers, as a tenant, simply is seeking some assurances that we will have the opportunity to continue to rent in this block at market rates?

2. Will RTC provide opportunities for Textbook Brokers to co-development and partner with RTC in this specific block after any taking or purchasing of lands?

3. Is RTC aware that by purchasing the block at 9th Street and Virginia, they will effectively present a multi-million dollar annual benefit to the state owned University of Nevada by removing the only private brick and mortar business which competes with the textbook sales of that University?

4. Will RTC please provide an alternative for community review that would not require the taking of the properties on the east side of Virginia between 8th Street and 9th Street?

1. RTC engineers have said in one on one discussions that a multi-modal hub could be engineered as an expansion of Route7 Stop 339, therefore as a response to this question will RTC please show a simplistic rendering of the northbound portion of the multimodal hub being positioned on the Northeast corner of Virginia and 9th Street? 2. RTC engineers have explained that some standards exisit for length of turnout required for a multimodal hub where the rapid busses transit riders would exchange with UNR shuttle riders: according to these standards, what is the minimum length of turnout that would be approvable? 3. RTC personnel have indicated in renderings that there the entire space between 8th and 9th is exactly enough to allow the positioning of a multimodal hub on the east side of Virginia street between 8th (North) and 9th, therefore will RTC please indicate on a drawing exactly where this same layout would end if the multimodal hub was shown on the north east corner of Virginia and Ninth Street? 4. University of Nevada Reno spokespeople have spoken extensively in Reno City Council Meetings regarding the "University Gateway District" area or overlay, and members of the Reno City council sit on the board of RTC, therefore has RTC opted out of showing an expansion of route 7 stop ID:339 because it does not align with the University Master Plan? 5. RTC may still be shaping their specific funding request for FTA with reguards to the Virginia Street Rapid Expansion Project, therefore will RTC please provide as a percentage of the total FTA funding request, what percentage of the project funding is presently being projected for the taking of and development of lands between 8th Street and 9th Street in Reno? 6. University of Nevada Reno's master plan (Availabe online at https://www.unr.edu/Documents/provost/provosts-office/forms/UNR-CMPU-2014-Final- SCREEN%20UPDATED.pdf) on the cover page, as well as on pages 2, 41, 58, and other pages of that document, shows a multi-modal hub very similar to the hub described as the "community alternative" by RTC, however since the Unversity Master plan predates the selection of the community alternative for the stop at the southwest corner of UNR campus, does RTC acknowledge that the multi-modal hub with RTC is advancing has been influenced by the UNR master plan? 7. If Route 7 Stop 339 were to be selected as a community preferred alternative to the location 200 feet to the south, as an expansion of an existing stop, rather than a taking of seven private properties with required demolition and redevelopment, what dollar figure or at least what portion of the total Virginia Street Rapid Expansion budget would such a hub require for aquisition and construction of a hub? 8. Will RTC Washoe please provide all present current ridership data for Route 7 stop 339 for 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012? Additionally will RTC please specifically provide daily ridership projections for the first three years of operation supporting the specific need for a multimodal hub between 8th Street and 9th Street since the 4th Street station is 0.7 miles (14 minutes walking distance) and additional facilities are projected northward on campus to facilitate the interchange of RTC and UNR shuttle riders? 9. Hedi Gansert, now senatior in the Nevada State Sentate, was serving as the Executive Director of External Relations for the University of Nevada Reno when the Reno City Council approved the expansion of the University Gateway District; this was during the same time that Reno City councilwoman Neoma Jardon was serving as the chair of RTC Washoe, therefore was there any communications between UNR staff and RTC Washoe staff (or boardmembers) or between RTC Washoe and Reno City Council staff regarding an attempt to procure federal funding for a project to redevelop the University Gateway District? 10. RTC Executive Director Lee Gibson and RTC Director of Planning Amy Cummings attended Reno City council meetings where UNR President Marc Johnson and External Director of External Relations Hedi Gansert were present for public comment during Reno City council Meetings in 2016 reguarding the University Gateway District overlay expansion where a recurring theme from students and a refrain from the City Mayor Hillary Schieve was "removing blight" in Reno (http://kunr.org/post/reno-developers-offer-save-blighted-motels-rebuffed#stream/0), therefore is RTC's decision to advance what they are describing as a "community preferred alternative" for a multimodal hub between 8th and 9th Street rather than 200 feet away between 9th and 10th Street stem from or support a Reno City Council initiative to remove blight (for example the two hotels which RTC is planning to take) or does this in any way advance the goals of the University of Nevada Reno to redevelop the city block mentioned? University of Nevada Reno's master plan provides images of ways that the intersection of Virginia and 9th Street in Reno, NV may be developed as pictured by consultants, and these images match closely what was presented in Reno City council meetings and in RTC meetings with vegetation in a median dividing the the north and south bound lanes of Virginia Street, therefore does the UNR master plan which shows images of University Properties built flush against the multimodal hub align with discussions either internal to RTC or discussions between RTC boardmembers and UNR staff or those promoting UNR's development plan for the University Gateway District? 11. Will RTC please comment on the economic impacts to the community, and also, separately, the economic benefits to UNR of the elimination of the businesses on the west side of North Virginia Street between 8th and 9th Street? 12. Will RTC please provide in response to these questions transcripts of any communications and or emails that exist between RTC and or employees and board members and any UNR or NSHE employees? 13. Has RTC polled UNR students specifically in the selection of the positioning of the multi-modal hub? 14. Does an agreement exist between RTC and UNR for the interchange of passengers and the sharing of the use of the proposed multi-modal platform? 15. Is there economic consideration to be given from RTC to UNR or from UNR to RTC in exchange for the shared use of these proposed facilities which with be partially funded with federal money? If so will RTC please provide any discussions or contract copies of such agreements for examples as they may exist elsewhere withing the RTC system as a response to this question? 16. In deciding on this location for the multi-modal hub is RTC aware of the number of customers served by Textbook Brokers and the size of the cost savings which this private company provides to UNR students who would be potential transit riders? 17. Will RTC please quantify the fare dollars which the proposed multi-modal hub stop specifically will generate as positioned at 9th street versus one block north? 18. Will RTC please propose the closing of 10th Street to the Reno City council to improve the safety of the existing route 7 stop 339 stop and further facilitate development there? 19. Is RTC covering the Orr ditch currently involved in a project to cover the Orr ditch at Pyramid Highway? 20. Is covering the Orr ditch near rout 7 stop 339 a problem for the historic nature of the ditch? 21. Manzanita Hall is historic, but could a multimodal hub be developed adjacent to Manzanita hall that would not impact the hall (http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/11/29/here-4-new-student-housing-projects- planned-unr/90264242/)--? 22. Is the Manzanita bowl a park by definition? Could UNR designate a strip of land deep enough for the provision of a multimodal hub on the western perimeter of the Manzanita bowl? Thank you, in advance for responding. Our concerns are that we want to be able to continue to do business. Please respond in writing and also feel free to contact me on my cell phone at 318-464-3556 in addition to responding in writing.

Jeffrey Loftin

Jeffrey Loftin BBA Solutions Inc. 10A E 9TH ST RENO, NV 89501 w. 775-284-9653 f. 775-284-9654 c. 318-464-3556 From: Jeffrey Loftin To: EA Comments Cc: Bobby Lorimer; Amy Cummings; Howard Riedl; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Comment on Environmental Assessment for Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Project Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 4:57:55 PM

Please enter the following a public comment for the purpose of response to the environmental assessment:

Questions: 1. Is RTC aware that Textbook Brokers, as a tenant, simply is seeking some assurances that we will have the opportunity to continue to rent in this block at market rates? 2. Will RTC provide opportunities for Textbook Brokers to co-development and partner with RTC in this specific block after any taking or purchasing of lands? 3. Is RTC aware that by purchasing the block at 9th Street and Virginia, they will effectively present a multi-million dollar annual benefit to the state owned University of Nevada by removing the only private brick and mortar business which competes with the textbook sales of that University? 4. Will RTC please provide an alternative for community review that would not require the taking of the properties on the east side of Virginia between 8th Street and 9th Street?

We also have some concerns about the relationship between RTC and their procurement of Federal funds for this project, and the ways in which that may dovetail with UNR's masterplan as presented to the Reno City Council, of which members are also RTC board members. 1. RTC engineers have said in one on one discussions that a multi-modal hub could be engineered as an expansion of Route7 Stop 339, therefore as a response to this question will RTC please show a simplistic rendering of the northbound portion of the multimodal hub being positioned on the Northeast corner of Virginia and 9th Street? 2. RTC engineers have explained that some standards exisit for length of turnout required for a multimodal hub where the rapid busses transit riders would exchange with UNR shuttle riders: according to these standards, what is the minimum length of turnout that would be approvable? 3. RTC personnel have indicated in renderings that there the entire space between 8th and 9th is exactly enough to allow the positioning of a multimodal hub on the east side of Virginia street between 8th (North) and 9th, therefore will RTC please indicate on a drawing exactly where this same layout would end if the multimodal hub was shown on the north east corner of Virginia and Ninth Street? 4. University of Nevada Reno spokespeople have spoken extensively in Reno City Council Meetings regarding the "University Gateway District" area or overlay, and members of the Reno City council sit on the board of RTC, therefore has RTC opted out of showing an expansion of route 7 stop ID:339 because it does not align with the University Master Plan? 5. RTC may still be shaping their specific funding request for FTA with reguards to the Virginia Street Rapid Expansion Project, therefore will RTC please provide as a percentage of the total FTA funding request, what percentage of the project funding is presently being projected for the taking of and development of lands between 8th Street and 9th Street in Reno? 6. University of Nevada Reno's master plan (Availabe online at https://www.unr.edu/Documents/provost/provosts-office/forms/UNR-CMPU-2014- Final-SCREEN%20UPDATED.pdf) on the cover page, as well as on pages 2, 41, 58, and other pages of that document, shows a multi-modal hub very similar to the hub described as the "community alternative" by RTC, however since the Unversity Master plan predates the selection of the community alternative for the stop at the southwest corner of UNR campus, does RTC acknowledge that the multi-modal hub with RTC is advancing has been influenced by the UNR master plan? 7. If Route 7 Stop 339 were to be selected as a community preferred alternative to the location 200 feet to the south, as an expansion of an existing stop, rather than a taking of seven private properties with required demolition and redevelopment, what dollar figure or at least what portion of the total Virginia Street Rapid Expansion budget would such a hub require for aquisition and construction of a hub? 8. Will RTC Washoe please provide all present current ridership data for Route 7 stop 339 for 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012? Additionally will RTC please specifically provide daily ridership projections for the first three years of operation supporting the specific need for a multimodal hub between 8th Street and 9th Street since the 4th Street station is 0.7 miles (14 minutes walking distance) and additional facilities are projected northward on campus to facilitate the interchange of RTC and UNR shuttle riders? 9. Hedi Gansert, now senatior in the Nevada State Sentate, was serving as the Executive Director of External Relations for the University of Nevada Reno when the Reno City Council approved the expansion of the University Gateway District; this was during the same time that Reno City councilwoman Neoma Jardon was serving as the chair of RTC Washoe, therefore was there any communications between UNR staff and RTC Washoe staff (or boardmembers) or between RTC Washoe and Reno City Council staff regarding an attempt to procure federal funding for a project to redevelop the University Gateway District? 10. RTC Executive Director Lee Gibson and RTC Director of Planning Amy Cummings attended Reno City council meetings where UNR President Marc Johnson and External Director of External Relations Hedi Gansert were present for public comment during Reno City council Meetings in 2016 reguarding the University Gateway District overlay expansion where a recurring theme from students and a refrain from the City Mayor Hillary Schieve was "removing blight" in Reno (http://kunr.org/post/reno-developers- offer-save-blighted-motels-rebuffed#stream/0), therefore is RTC's decision to advance what they are describing as a "community preferred alternative" for a multimodal hub between 8th and 9th Street rather than 200 feet away between 9th and 10th Street stem from or support a Reno City Council initiative to remove blight (for example the two hotels which RTC is planning to take) or does this in any way advance the goals of the University of Nevada Reno to redevelop the city block mentioned? University of Nevada Reno's master plan provides images of ways that the intersection of Virginia and 9th Street in Reno, NV may be developed as pictured by consultants, and these images match closely what was presented in Reno City council meetings and in RTC meetings with vegetation in a median dividing the the north and south bound lanes of Virginia Street, therefore does the UNR master plan which shows images of University Properties built flush against the multimodal hub align with discussions either internal to RTC or discussions between RTC board-members and UNR staff or those promoting UNR's development plan for the University Gateway District? 11. Will RTC please comment on the economic impacts to the community, and also, separately, the economic benefits to UNR of the elimination of the businesses on the west side of North Virginia Street between 8th and 9th Street? 12. Will RTC please provide in response to these questions transcripts of any communications and or emails that exist between RTC and or employees and board members and any UNR or NSHE employees? 13. Has RTC polled UNR students specifically in the selection of the positioning of the multi-modal hub? 14. Does an agreement exist between RTC and UNR for the interchange of passengers and the sharing of the use of the proposed multi-modal platform? 15. Is there economic consideration to be given from RTC to UNR or from UNR to RTC in exchange for the shared use of these proposed facilities which with be partially funded with federal money? If so will RTC please provide any discussions or contract copies of such agreements for examples as they may exist elsewhere withing the RTC system as a response to this question? 16. In deciding on this location for the multi-modal hub is RTC aware of the number of customers served by Textbook Brokers and the size of the cost savings which this private company provides to UNR students who would be potential transit riders? 17. Will RTC please quantify the fare dollars which the proposed multi-modal hub stop specifically will generate as positioned at 9th street versus one block north? 18. Will RTC please propose the closing of 10th Street to the Reno City council to improve the safety of the existing route 7 stop 339 stop and further facilitate development there? 19. Is RTC covering the Orr ditch currently involved in a project to cover the Orr ditch at Pyramid Highway? 20. Is covering the Orr ditch near rout 7 stop 339 a problem for the historic nature of the ditch? 21. Manzanita Hall is historic, but could a multimodal hub be developed adjacent to Manzanita hall that would not impact the hall (http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/11/29/here-4-new-student-housing- projects-planned-unr/90264242/)--? 22. Is the Manzanita bowl a park by definition? Could UNR designate a strip of land deep enough for the provision of a multimodal hub on the western perimeter of the Manzanita bowl?

Jeffrey Loftin

Jeffrey Loftin BBA Solutions Inc. 10A E 9TH ST RENO, NV 89501 w. 775-284-9653 f. 775-284-9654 c. 318-464-3556

From: Jenny Brekhus To: EA Comments Cc: Michael Moreno; Me at City Subject: Virginia St. Rapid Expansion Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 12:25:26 PM

Please find the attached comments. As I am in a different time zone this holiday week, acknowledgement of timely receipt of these comments is appreciated:

July 6, 2017

To Whom It May Concern:

These comments are provided in response to the Virginia Street Rapid Extension Environmental Assessment (EA) and are in addition to and elaborate upon those I offered verbally at the June 22 public hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important project that straddles an area that I represent on the Reno City Council.

Property Taking

The project description involves a property taking of the eastern N. Virginia Street half block between Eighth and Ninth Streets and is explained as necessary for the construction of a multimodal transportation hub for this area. Inadequate detail is provided for me to understand the impact of this project component. As example, the property to be taken is shown as a narrow western strip of the half block. It is thus, unclear why the entire half block is needed for acquisition. University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) officials have in the past, distributed illustrated renderings of future campus plans that depict university buildings on this property. It is unclear upon review of the EA, if there are plans by RTC Washoe or other entities, to dispose the unused portions of the block for UNR purposes.

The EA discusses that federal relocation rules apply to property acquisition but detail is lacking to describe the disposition of property that is acquired but not needed for the project. As UNR also owns the half block to the east upon which the historically significant N. Center Street structures front, I am inquiring if a post-project disposition would position UNR as previously contemplated, to demolish the historic structures. The EA identifies the significance of these structures. I believe that a full vetting of the impacts to this project should analyze potential property disposition scenarios and if any of the scenarios would imperil identifiable historic resources, a fuller vetting of impacts may be necessitated through the environmental review process.

Social Justice and Impact upon Persons of Low to Moderate Income

In a similar vein, I am concerned about the displacement of low to moderate income individuals as a result of the N. Virginia Street property acquisition and disposition. It does not appear that any mitigating measures other than routinely applicable federal relocation regulations are proposed. As Reno is experiencing rental housing price escalation and this trend impacts most significantly persons of low to moderate income means, I believe that a more detailed analysis of the impact of losing a portion of this segment of the housing stock is needed. Additionally, if the N. Virginia Street block is disposed to UNR and that land is aggregated with the N. Center Street land and the historic structures are razed, an unidentified number of individuals residing in those historic structures might also be displaced. The EA does not address displacement of individuals residing in the N. Center Street properties or the loss of that housing stock.

Fiscal Constraints and American with Disabilities Act

I am not well versed on the NEPA process and do not wish to inject concerns not relevant to the federal review process. However, I have grown increasingly concerned that this project is unusually “bundled”. It involves northern and southern geographic segments and excludes Reno’s downtown that is situated between the two project segments. I am concerned that in a fiscally constrained environment, that an overly elaborate project may not be feasible in today’s uncertain federal funding climate.

The portion of the corridor that I represent is woefully non-compliant to American with Disabilities Act sidewalk conditions. In fact, a local person of physical disability who transports by wheelchair has complained about the conditions to the City of Reno. I understand that he accepted temporal improvements that while not meeting compliance, are an improvement to the existing conditions as he understood the corridor project is planned. I have concern that the “bundled” project will linger in competition for funding and that full ADA compliance will as well. RTC Washoe representatives have assured me during this planning process that should the project encounter delayed programming that the southern project will proceed in the 2019 construction season with the use of local resources. While these comments may not be relevant to the EA hearing process, I felt it important to memorialize these concerns and understanding herein.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the EA. I look forward to reviewing the final document as it evolves through the public input process.

Jenny Brekhus, Reno City Council Member for Ward 1

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is also legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and immediately destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. From: Feast To: EA Comments Cc: [email protected] Subject: Virginia St. Expansion Project. Date: Sunday, July 2, 2017 5:40:58 PM

To Whom It May Concern ,

R.T.C., the current plan shows no left turn for five blocks heading south from liberty. being as Center street is a one way street, half of our patrons would have to travel five blocks before they could turn left and the they would have to go back on center street and then turn left again to find a back way into our establishment. we have put a lot of money into our location because we would like to enjoy the benefits of the traffic on Virginia st. With the current design you intend, it will cut our patronage.

A possible solution could be, eliminate the planned island in front of Feast at California and Virginia intersection. paint in a left turn lane and add a light to the already existing light. Another solution would be , a round about at the California and Virginia intersection.

Please look into this before plans are finalized. thank you, Ken @ Feast. From: Environmental Assessment To: EA Comments Subject: New submission from Virginia Street Environmental Assessment Form Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 1:34:35 PM

Your Name

Mark Taxer

Your Email Address

[email protected]

Comment

I am very concerned about historic structures along Virginia street that may not be directly affected by the plan, but may have have indirect effects due to their proximity. Chiefly my concern is with the Victorian homes in the Gateway District, on Center St between 8th and 9th. The transit hub is planned for the Virginia St half of this block and goes right to the alley behind these homes. What is the plan in conjunction with UNR to preserve and utilize this resource to full historic/functional/heritage tourism with the full financial benefit to be derived from preservation? In addition, if the full space acquired by RTC is not completely utilized, perhaps it should be used (in the current alley area) perhaps it should be used in concert with preservation of the original Victorian structures as some sort of heritage structure business park. From: Randy"s Mail To: EA Comments Subject: Virginia st rapid transit extension EA comment Randy Collins. Date: Saturday, July 1, 2017 8:57:02 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to address the latest developments in this ongoing project.

The new bus hub appears to only need a certain amount of space however doesn't describe the surrounding neighborhood's historical houses. Pedestrian safety is a key issue that Reno is facing and it is imperative that the design give more than lip service to designing the roadways to slow down the actual speeds of automobile traffic. Suggestions include “flashing pedestrian lights,” bulbouts, and posted speeds of ______. In October of 2015 at a Reno City Council meeting the RTC specifically said they would be working on bicycle lane connectivity between the north and south ends of this corridor. As of yet there appears to be no consideration of this promise within the EA. I would like to propose that both Sierra and Center Streets, which run parallel to the Virginia Street corridor, include bicycle lanes and/or a multidirectional “cycletrack” to link the UNR, Downtown, and Midtown areas. The Sierra Street bicycle infrastructure should feed into the Forest St. cycletrack which is already in the Master Plan for Reno. We would suggest including that stretch of infrastructure in this project as other adjacent streets are already being modified for this corridor to improve flow of traffic into this neighborhood. I brought up in 2016 meetings with RTC members the availability of city grants for alternate transportation. Were these grants per sued?

All of these suggestions are meant to mitigate safety concerns and to preserve the unique potential of this project to enhance the quality of life in Reno's urban core.

Respectfully submitted, Randy Collins.

Sent from my iPhone

From: Scott Stranzl To: EA Comments Subject: Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:17:30 PM Attachments: image001.jpg

Doug – we were forwarded today from a 3rd party the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension information regarding the proposed changes on S. Virginia. We are the owners of 50 W. Liberty and would appreciate discussing the project and the impacts to the vehicular access in and around the area. Our main concern is that as a result of the proposed modifications it appears that customers who exit the parking garage from 50 W. Liberty on to S. Virginia will no longer be able to turn left on to S. Virginia. Additionally, a car traveling South on S. Virginia will no longer be able to turn left on to Stewart St.

I look forward to discussing these items further. I look forward to hearing from you.

Scott

------Scott Stranzl VP of Leasing 775.954.2828 office basin.street.com

BasinStreet_Logo-signature2

·1

·2· BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-oOo-

·4

·5

·6

·7· · · · VIRGINIA STREET BRT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·Public Hearing

·9

11· · · · · · · · · THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017

13· · · · · · · · · ·UNR Innevation Center · · · · · · · · · · · 450 Sinclair Street 14· · · · · · · · · · · · Reno, Nevada

24· Reported by:· KRISTINE BOKELMANN, CCR #165, RDR, CRR

25· Job No.: 397875 Page 2 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES

·2· FOR THE RTC:

·3· MICHAEL MORENO · · AMY CUMMINGS ·4

·5

·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX

·7· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE:

·8· OPENING REMARKS BY MICHAEL MORENO· · · · · · · · · ·3

·9· PRESENTATION BY AMY CUMMINGS· · · · · · · · · · · · 6

11· COMMENTS:

12· JENNY BREKHUS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 16

13· SARA DEPOALI· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·19

14· JEFFREY LOFTIN· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·19

15· KIRK JOHNSON· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·22

16· GREG KUKUK· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·24

17· MARK MAZUROWSKI· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 25

25 Page 3 ·1· · · RENO, NEVADA, THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2017, 5:45 P.M. ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·-oOo- ·3 ·4· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Good evening, everybody. ·5· Welcome to the Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit ·6· Project Environmental Assessment Public Hearing.· My ·7· name is Michael Moreno.· I'm the public affairs manager ·8· for the RTC, and on behalf of the RTC Board of ·9· Commissioners, our project team and staff, I want to 10· thank you all for being here tonight, but even -- but 11· just as important, I want to thank the community for 12· participating with us in developing this project. 13· · · · · · In cooperation with the Federal Transit 14· Administration, we have developed this environmental 15· assessment and the FTA gave us approval to circulate 16· the environmental assessment, and thus, we began the 17· public comment period on June 6th, earlier this month, 18· and it's running until July 6th at 5:00 p.m. 19· · · · · · And so this public hearing is an opportunity 20· to share information about the EA.· We have boards in 21· the back.· We have a project team here to answer 22· questions at the board, but for purposes of this public 23· hearing, we will be accepting public comment for the 24· record. 25· · · · · · We will not be responding to those comments Page 4 ·1· at this time.· Because of the process, we have a window ·2· of time in which to respond to those comments to the ·3· FTA and to the community. ·4· · · · · · So I want to start with a few introductions ·5· first.· I want to welcome Councilwoman Jenny Brekhus ·6· from the City of Reno, Ward 1 representative.· Thank ·7· you for being here.· I know you've been very active and ·8· involved with the development of this project. ·9· · · · · · And I also want to welcome Gillian Block, who 10· is with the office of Catherine Cortez Masto, and she's 11· the regional representative.· So Gillian, welcome, as 12· well. 13· · · · · · MS. BLOCK:· Thank you. 14· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· We have a number of individuals 15· here from the project team ready to talk with you, 16· listen to you.· And I want to start with Doug Maloy, 17· who is a project manager for the Virginia Street 18· project.· Doug.· And then Amy Cummings, who is the 19· director of planning, and she will be giving the 20· presentation this evening. 21· · · · · · I also want to, by a show of hands, the 22· project team, will you please stand and identify 23· yourselves.· So the project team is here to, again, 24· answer some questions on the boards.· Talk with them. 25· · · · · · When you checked in, you were given or were Page 5 ·1· told about the public comment form that we have ·2· available for you to complete.· We also have a court ·3· reporter here this evening.· Her name is Kris.· She ·4· will be documenting the meeting, but she is also here ·5· to document your comments as well. ·6· · · · · · So you have a few ways to give us public ·7· comment.· You have the public comment form; you have ·8· Kris, the court reporter; you can also make comments ·9· through the rtcwashoe.com website, as well as the 10· virginiastreetrapidextension.com website. 11· · · · · · The environmental assessment is available for 12· you at a number of different places, both on the 13· website.· We also have it available at the RTC 14· engineering office located at 1105 Terminal Way, Suite 15· 108.· We also have the document available at the Washoe 16· County downtown library as well as the City of Reno 17· Clerk's Office on the second floor. 18· · · · · · So we have a brief presentation for you, and 19· I'm going to turn it over to Amy Cummings to do that. 20· · · · · · At the conclusion of the presentation, we 21· will open up the public comment period, which somebody 22· will come to you with a microphone to take your 23· comments.· As I mentioned at the top of the meeting, we 24· will not be responding to those comments today. 25· · · · · · And so with that, I'd like to introduce Amy Page 6 ·1· Cummings, director of planning. ·2· · · · · · MS. CUMMINGS:· Thank you very much, Michael, ·3· and thank you, everyone, for joining us here tonight. ·4· I know many of you have been involved with this project ·5· for a number of years now, so we are continuing to move ·6· along towards our project development and continuing to ·7· make progress.· So appreciate everyone's input here ·8· today. ·9· · · · · · And as Michael mentioned, our mission today 10· is to collect comments on the environmental assessment. 11· And although we're not going to be responding to 12· comments today, we want to make sure we have 13· everything -- we have the court reporter here to make 14· sure we have everything in writing, and that's why the 15· comment cards are also great. 16· · · · · · So we'll be responding to all the comments 17· that we receive in writing and we'll be sharing that 18· input and those responses with the Federal Transit 19· Administration, and they'll be the ones that make the 20· determination on, you know, do we have adverse 21· environmental impacts that we need to be addressing in 22· a different way other than we have presented here 23· today. 24· · · · · · So that's why it's so important, and even 25· though we aren't going to be, you know, having much of Page 7 ·1· a back-and-forth dialogue today, we will be responding ·2· to each and every comment in writing as part of the ·3· formal process. ·4· · · · · · So this is an overview of what we're going to ·5· be talking about, just our time line, some highlights ·6· from the EA, environmental assessment, and then some of ·7· our next steps. ·8· · · · · · So it was back in 2014/2015 when we started ·9· developing the alternatives for this project, and we 10· spent much of last year doing the analysis for the EA, 11· itself, technical work, and so here we are today to get 12· your feedback on that.· And then we do have final 13· design to complete and are looking forward to starting 14· the construction process in 2018. 15· · · · · · Of course, this is fundamentally a transit 16· project, so the core of this is to increase our transit 17· ridership.· We think there's a huge opportunity for 18· that by tapping into the biggest employment and 19· activity generator in our region up at UNR. 20· · · · · · We also want to improve that connectivity and 21· the convenience of that.· So today, if you want to take 22· transit up to UNR, you have to transfer at Fourth 23· Street Station to get on to the Sierra Spirit, and that 24· can easily add 15 or 20 minutes to your trip.· So 25· that's a big disincentive to taking transit.· And we Page 8 ·1· feel that having this direct connection on our premier ·2· service is really going to boost that ridership. ·3· · · · · · Just for comparison, if you're on Virginia ·4· Street at Midtown, about 20 percent of the trips there ·5· are made on transit, but when you get up to UNR, it's ·6· only about seven percent.· So there's a huge ·7· opportunity for growth there. ·8· · · · · · We also are having a big focus on pedestrian ·9· safety.· Safety is a guiding principle of the RTC, and 10· we're going to be focusing on the sidewalk and 11· crosswalk improvements throughout the corridor. 12· · · · · · And upgrading those sidewalks has the extra 13· benefit for our transit service in that today where you 14· don't have a good sidewalk, there a lot of people who 15· can't physically get to the transit stop.· So having an 16· accessible path of travel is going to be another way 17· that we can increase access to transit and support our 18· ridership. 19· · · · · · This is the map of our project area.· So the 20· solid red line is where we have our service today 21· stopping at the Fourth Street Station, and in that 22· portion we're going to be upgrading some of our 23· stations and making some reconfigurations to the 24· roadway and improving the sidewalks in that area. 25· · · · · · And then the green line north from Fourth Page 9 ·1· Street Station up to UNR, drawing on Sixth Street, ·2· that's where we're going to be doing the extension of ·3· the RAPID service up to Lawlor. ·4· · · · · · And again, highlighting some of the need for ·5· the project is the strong growth that we're seeing at ·6· UNR, the population increase that we're seeing.· We ·7· really need these different mobility alternatives to be ·8· able to accommodate that growth. ·9· · · · · · We want to improve our transit performance, 10· make sure the buses are competitive with auto travel 11· times, and of course, improving pedestrian safety. I 12· think everyone here knows how deficient many of our 13· sidewalks are, so that is absolutely a big priority, 14· which is going to improve safety significantly. 15· · · · · · A lot of what you'll see in the environmental 16· assessment -- as Michael said, we do have copies of 17· that here in the room today.· They're also available 18· online -- is the alternatives analysis process, so 19· talking about the different routes, the different 20· station locations, and that's what you see here.· And 21· as you all are familiar, we've had years of community 22· outreach and engagements to identify these options. 23· · · · · · And this is a little bit hard to show in just 24· bullet points, so I encourage everyone to take a look 25· at the maps in the back of the room where you can Page 10 ·1· really visualize what these improvements are.· So the ·2· extension, itself, it's going to go on Lake and Evans, ·3· across Sixth to North Virginia Street, and then up to ·4· Lawlor.· We'll have new -- five new RAPID stations to ·5· serve the university area, north and southbound ·6· stations between Eighth and Ninth, station at College, ·7· a northbound station at 14th, and then one station at ·8· 15th near where the roundabout is going to be up by ·9· Lawlor. 10· · · · · · On South Virginia we're going to be upgrading 11· three of what we call the mini stations, which are just 12· the short shelter to the full size RAPID stations that 13· will have level boarding and all the other amenities 14· that people expect at a RAPID station, and those will 15· be at Holcomb, La Rue and Stewart. 16· · · · · · We'll also be doing some other improvements 17· that improve our transit operations.· So on North 18· Virginia, the curbside lanes are going to be converted 19· to a bus only lane, which is shared with right turn 20· traffic, so if you are making a turn into a driveway, 21· you'll be able to use that curbside lane. 22· · · · · · We'll be adding bicycle lanes and improving 23· the crosswalks and adding a roundabout just north of 24· Lawlor Events Center at the parking garage, which will 25· greatly enhance people's ability to safely get out of Page 11 ·1· the parking garage. ·2· · · · · · And then on South Virginia Street we do have ·3· a small section from Wells to Mt. Rose that's also ·4· going to be converted, the curbside lane to a bus only ·5· lane, which also does allow right turn traffic for the ·6· cars.· We will be adding a roundabout at Mary and ·7· Center Streets, and also doing the sidewalk and ·8· crosswalk improvements throughout. ·9· · · · · · And as you can see in the graphics, we're 10· going to be going to the sidewalks that are at least 10 11· feet wide in that most tight area of Midtown.· We'll be 12· adding street trees and bulb-outs. 13· · · · · · And I know many people are interested in some 14· of those final design sort of finishes, the landscaping 15· aesthetics, and we are -- we're not really focusing on 16· that in the environmental assessment, but we are going 17· to be continuing our community engagement process on 18· those details of the project as we move forward, the 19· lighting and the other items. 20· · · · · · So this page of boxes shows you the different 21· environmental issues that we looked at as part of the 22· EA, and there's a lot more detail on each of these on 23· the boards in the back as well as in the document 24· itself. 25· · · · · · And so we go through and look at other Page 12 ·1· potential temporary impacts, such as during ·2· construction or the potential long-term impacts and how ·3· can we mitigate those.· So what we've done is gone ·4· through, identified those potential impacts and ·5· strategies and commitments that RTC is making to ·6· alleviate those impacts. ·7· · · · · · So some examples are construction -- air ·8· quality impacts during construction, so having dust ·9· control measures is an important part of our mitigation 10· for that.· For construction noise, limiting the time of 11· day that certain types of construction equipment are 12· used.· Those are the types of things that you'll see in 13· those sections. 14· · · · · · Another example is traffic.· By doing some 15· updates to our signal timing, we're able to make sure 16· that intersections are going to continue to flow at our 17· policy level of service. 18· · · · · · We are going to have 37 on-street parking 19· spaces on Virginia Street that are lost, but we're 20· adding more parking spaces on the side streets and 21· other areas, so that's not, we feel, is a significant 22· impact. 23· · · · · · There's also property acquisition that's 24· involved in this project, so there are five parcels 25· that would be acquired on North Virginia between Eighth Page 13 ·1· and Ninth and one parcel on South Virginia.· And again, ·2· the project team would be happy to work with you to ·3· identify those on the board. ·4· · · · · · And then a number of construction and ·5· temporary easements that will be required.· On North ·6· Virginia, 20 contemporary construction and 12 permitted ·7· easements, and on South Virginia 60 permanent easements ·8· and 155 temporary construction easements. ·9· · · · · · Our next steps as we move forward, again, we 10· are collecting comments from the community on this 11· project through July 6th, and then we will shift into 12· addressing all of those, making sure we get a written 13· response into the record, and that will be part of the 14· final decision document.· We'll share all that with the 15· Federal Transit Administration as they do make their 16· final determination, and there will be another report 17· published to include their findings. 18· · · · · · So as I mentioned, we'll continue our 19· community outreach on the landscape and the aesthetics 20· component of the project, and we anticipate that's 21· going to continue for the coming months as we select 22· streetlights and things of that sort. 23· · · · · · And then next year, 2018, is when we would be 24· able to start the right-of-way acquisition and 25· relocation process, should we get the green light from Page 14 ·1· FTA, and we'll also be moving forward to complete final ·2· design. ·3· · · · · · And Michael already ran through this list, ·4· but here it is up on the board for you to take note of, ·5· our website address, the project website, the locations ·6· where you can find the documents, as well as the City ·7· of Reno Clerk's Office.· And just leave that up for ·8· another minute. ·9· · · · · · It's virginiastreetrapidextension.com and 10· rtcwashoe.com.· And then these are the different ways 11· you can make your comments, by mail, email at 12· [email protected] on the project website, and of 13· course, you may speak with the court reporter here.· So 14· we'll just leave this up for the rest of the meeting 15· for anyone's reference. 16· · · · · · And that concludes the overview of the EA, 17· and Michael is going to facilitate the comment period 18· for anyone.· And again, you may go up one on one to 19· speak with the court reporter, but for anyone who would 20· like to make their comments here at the microphone, we 21· have a three-minute timer here that Doug is going to be 22· making sure it works, and I'll pass this back to 23· Michael.· Thank you again. 24· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Thanks, Amy.· Just a couple of 25· reiterations.· Comments will be accepted through July Page 15 ·1· 6th at 5:00 p.m.· Okay?· So be sure you're aware of ·2· that. ·3· · · · · · This PowerPoint presentation that was given ·4· tonight will be available on the project website and ·5· the rtcwashoe.com website. ·6· · · · · · As Amy mentioned, we will have continued ·7· community engagement for the landscape, lighting, and ·8· hardscape finishes in the coming months. ·9· · · · · · We're in the process of preparing a survey 10· right now which will go out in the coming weeks.· If 11· you would like to participate in that survey, you're 12· not currently receiving updates on this project, I 13· encourage you to leave your email address at the 14· sign-in table so that we have it on file.· Also 15· encourage you to, when you visit 16· virginiastreetrapidextension.com, you can subscribe on 17· the website to receive project updates, meeting 18· notifications about the project automatically. 19· · · · · · So with that, we'll begin the public comment 20· period.· Again, as Amy mentioned, we have a number of 21· ways.· You are welcome to use the microphone to express 22· your comments.· Kris will be documenting those.· You 23· can also come over and sit by Kris, and we'll have a 24· little bit more time because, as Amy mentioned, there's 25· a three-minute limit on the public comment period here Page 16 ·1· that we're having.· And with that, we'll open it up. ·2· · · · · · Who would like to start?· Okay.· Please state ·3· your name for the record. ·4· · · · · · MS. BREKHUS:· My name is Jenny Brekhus.· I'm ·5· the Reno City council member for Ward 1.· My comments ·6· and questions are my own.· And not really experienced ·7· with the National Environmental Policy Act procedures, ·8· so hope I'm making comments that are germane to the ·9· topic here today. 10· · · · · · I understand that this is, as Amy said, 11· fundamentally a transit project and that the FTA is the 12· lead agency, and I was wondering if there was anyone 13· here from the FTA.· I didn't see an introduction from 14· someone from the FTA. 15· · · · · · I also heard that the FTA has allowed RTC to 16· facilitate this process.· I'm just wondering if there's 17· any agreements that are on the website where we could 18· see about that relationship that's been created between 19· FTA and the RTC about this process. 20· · · · · · And I'm a Reno city council member.· I'm not 21· an RTC member, so maybe there's something I've missed. 22· · · · · · The website documents also show on the logos 23· the University of Nevada Reno's logo and the City of 24· Reno's website.· I'm wondering if any partnerships, 25· documents have been entered into about those entities' Page 17 ·1· roles in this project.· There may be something I'm not ·2· aware of. ·3· · · · · · I'm also interested in knowing if with ·4· respect to the disposition of the properties that are ·5· identified to be acquired, if there's any agreements, ·6· verbal, written, or otherwise, about how those ·7· properties will be disposed upon the project's ·8· completion. ·9· · · · · · Because I am noting on the right-of-way take 10· on the east side of Virginia Street between Eighth and 11· Ninth Street, that it's a very shallow take.· It's not 12· a scale document, so it's hard to tell in the project 13· description the depth of that take, but it's a very 14· small percentage of that block. 15· · · · · · So I'm wondering then, understanding 16· disposition of properties, where that property is to go 17· to and planned to go, in particular, because that 18· property block that will be acquired backs up to a city 19· alley right-of-way and then backs up to a half block 20· owned by the University of Nevada, Reno. 21· · · · · · I understand where the University of Nevada, 22· Reno has shown in documents characterizations of 23· development on that half block that is identified as 24· historically significant, and I've seen iterations and 25· renderings from the University of Nevada, Reno Page 18 ·1· materials showing that there will be a building ·2· footprint from where this property take is to the ·3· Center Street where the historic resources are.· So ·4· wondering, you know, concern about the impact to the ·5· historic resources, understanding that there will be ·6· excess land to dispose of. ·7· · · · · · Wondering about the characteristics of the ·8· multimodal center that's shown on that block in respect ·9· to the Fourth Street/Center transit system that's about 10· four blocks away. 11· · · · · · And let me see.· Wondering if there are 12· cross-section profiles between the mini stations and 13· the full bus stop stations.· Didn't see that in the 14· document. 15· · · · · · And the final comment is understand that we 16· operate in a transit -- federal transit environment 17· that focuses on fiscally constraint.· The most 18· important thing to me is clearing up the noncompliances 19· on South Virginia Street in the south section of the 20· project because the City of Reno is under an ADA 21· complaint that has received temporary reprieve. 22· · · · · · But presuming that, you know, the federal 23· funds aren't available because we live in a fiscally 24· constrained environment, I have been assured that local 25· funds are available for that project.· And I'm just Page 19 ·1· wondering also the characteristics of the funding ·2· project in different scenarios of federal funding. ·3· · · · · · So thank you very much. ·4· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Thank you, councilwoman. ·5· · · · · · Others? ·6· · · · · · · · · · (Inaudible comment.) ·7· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· No, we have a court reporter ·8· available, so -- ·9· · · · · · MS. DEPOALI:· Hi.· My name is Sara DePoali. 10· I am here representing Action.· We have a few similar 11· questions.· Ours is particular to the corner of 12· Virginia and Eighth Street, so from what it looks like 13· on the plans, it looks like that the current plans do 14· not utilize the entire plot, and because of the Reno 15· Housing Project, with the issues we're having with 16· displaced individuals that are currently living in some 17· of those areas, would there be an opportunity for us to 18· put new low-income housing on those plots that are not 19· being used fully.· Thank you. 20· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Thank you, Miss DePoali. 21· · · · · · Other comments? 22· · · · · · MR. LOFTIN:· My name is Jeffrey Loftin with 23· Textbook Brokers.· We are a tenant at 10 East Ninth 24· Street, and we have questions about the positioning of 25· the multimodal hub between Eighth and Ninth Streets as Page 20 ·1· there are other adjacent blocks, specifically between ·2· Ninth Street and Tenth Street, which are presently ·3· owned by the university, which is a green space, not ·4· specifically a park space, so it wouldn't be ·5· specifically, we believe, excluded from use as a ·6· transit -- in a transit use. ·7· · · · · · We have questions.· Are there -- has there ·8· been an inquiry about the cost of acquiring only a ·9· depth of take as would be necessary for the multimodal 10· hub to be positioned between Ninth and Tenth Street on 11· the east side of Virginia rather than between Eighth 12· and Ninth. 13· · · · · · Further, has a study of economic impact been 14· done specifically regarding the taking of these 15· properties between Eighth and Ninth Street.· Also, is a 16· hub between Eighth and Ninth Street the most cost 17· effective way to provide a direct connection between 18· the existing routes in Midtown, downtown, and UNR. 19· · · · · · Also, would a hub between Ninth and Tenth 20· also provide a direct connection as needed between 21· existing routes and UNR.· Also, how many businesses 22· exactly and how many tenants exactly will be displaced 23· if RTC takes the proposed properties between Eighth and 24· Ninth Street. 25· · · · · · Further, has anyone employed by NSHE or UNR Page 21 ·1· suggested the taking of lands between Eighth and Ninth ·2· Street will benefit the university in any way.· Also, ·3· have there been conversations by email, phone, or ·4· otherwise that indicate that UNR will have access to ·5· these properties after the taking and the RTC use. ·6· · · · · · Further, Edward Lagomarsino, president of the ·7· Orr Ditch Company, is available by phone for comment, ·8· wherein he has said that the only historic aspect of ·9· the Orr Ditch is the fact that it delivers water out to 10· Red Hawk.· It flows for over half a mile in piping and 11· ditch and is covered. 12· · · · · · He said his company has routinely reviewed 13· and approved properly engineered plans to cover the Orr 14· Ditch, and that that in no way, in the owners of the 15· Orr Ditch's factual understanding, impacts the historic 16· value of the ditch in any way.· He said that it can run 17· through pipe, covered or uncovered, and also that the 18· RTC is presently working on a project at McCarran and 19· Pyramid where they're doing exactly that and covering 20· the Orr Ditch in another location. 21· · · · · · We cannot be moved as a business.· We are the 22· only specific private business that 100 percent of our 23· customers are University of Reno -- University of 24· Nevada, Reno students, and we believe that the specific 25· taking of property, with no other alternative for a Page 22 ·1· similar proximity for our business to the university, ·2· will not only terminally impact our business, but that ·3· it will fiscally and financially directly benefit the ·4· university, which is obviously the root of many of our ·5· concerns as the use of this property is not described ·6· beyond the taking of multimodal hub. ·7· · · · · · Further, have any of the engineers seen or ·8· drawn or sketched, are there in existing RTC documents ·9· proposals or discussions of using this space where 10· there's already an existing bus stop between Ninth and 11· Tenth to use perhaps an expanded use in the public 12· right-of-way with a tiny, small, minimalistic amount of 13· taking from existing space on the edge of the Manzanita 14· Bowl area.· Thank you. 15· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Thanks, Jeffrey.· Next. 16· · · · · · MR. JOHNSON:· Hi.· My name is Kirk Johnson, 17· and I had just a quick observation with regard to the 18· medians that are -- the median that is going to go in 19· between Vassar and Liberty. 20· · · · · · In looking at the maps, it's obvious that 21· that's going to have some significant adverse impacts 22· on the businesses along those routes, as there's many 23· of those businesses are going to have no left turn 24· access.· It's going to be extremely inconvenient. 25· · · · · · I didn't see any analysis in the EA as to the Page 23 ·1· financial impact or the adverse impact on those ·2· businesses of the median between Vassar and Liberty. ·3· · · · · · Also, I noticed that there was an extended ·4· left turn lane going northbound on Virginia at Liberty, ·5· which didn't seem consistent with the less auto-centric ·6· environment that they're trying to advocate, and it ·7· seemed to me as though that could be shortened and some ·8· left turn access onto Stewart and into some businesses ·9· in that vicinity could be added and to at least lessen 10· the impact of the medians in that area.· Thank you. 11· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 12· · · · · · Next?· Going once.· Going twice.· Okay. 13· Again, on behalf of the RTC, want to thank you all for 14· being here this evening.· Did you want to speak? 15· · · · · · MR. KUKUK:· Well, no, I just wanted to go 16· over to court reporter. 17· · · · · · MR. MORENO:· Okay.· So we are here until 7:00 18· p.m., and Kris will be here with us through that time. 19· · · · · · Again, our project team members will be at 20· the boards.· Please review the boards, ask questions. 21· If you want to make comments, they will have comment 22· forms in their hand.· Again, we encourage you to either 23· complete a comment form or come talk to Kris up here. 24· · · · · · And again, the locations where the -- or the 25· way you can make a public comment is listed up here. Page 24 ·1· We also have a board with that information, along with ·2· the locations where you can review the document. ·3· Again, public comment closes on July 6th at 5:00 p.m. ·4· · · · · · Thank you very much for joining us this ·5· evening.· We do have some light refreshments in the ·6· back, so we encourage you to eat and drink because we ·7· don't want to take that back to the office.· So thank ·8· you very much. ·9· · · · · · MR, KUKUK:· Greetings.· I have a solution to 10· save the RTC millions of dollars regarding the Virginia 11· Street Bus RAPID Transit extension project. 12· Specifically, between Eighth and Ninth Street on 13· Virginia Street, I propose the RTC to relocate the 14· proposed RTC Bus RAPID Station immediately north of 15· Ninth Street where there is sufficient vacant land that 16· is owned by the university. 17· · · · · · This would alleviate having to acquire tax 18· paying private property owners.· Most of these have 19· existing businesses which would have to be relocated. 20· By moving the bus RAPID station north of Ninth Street, 21· the RTC will save millions of dollars on this project. 22· · · · · · Attached is a Washoe County Quick Map with a 23· template on it showing sufficient vacant land for this 24· project.· I hope you will consider my proposal.· Thank 25· you. Page 25 ·1· · · · · · MR. MAZUROWSKI:· I'm a UNR student and I feel ·2· that the placement of the modal in -- for the actual ·3· placement essentially wipes out that block of ·4· businesses in between I think it's Ninth. ·5· · · · · · So my question is do you think UNR will ·6· benefit financially from the destruction of Textbook ·7· Brokers?· Because I'm a university student, and ·8· Textbook Brokers is the only competitor against the ·9· university. 10· · · · · · And so they want to place a bus modal hub 11· thing, a bus station, essentially a bus stop on top of 12· the only competitor, when there's a perfectly usable 13· space just down the block.· And their only reason 14· against not using it, RTC, is the historicity of the 15· Orr Ditch, which we've contacted the owners and the 16· only historic value to the ditch is the fact that it 17· moves water from A to B and that the medium through 18· which that movement occurs means nothing. 19· · · · · · So if they can cover it a little bit and move 20· that bus station a little bit down, they save $12 21· million in destruction of community property, taking 22· all that stuff down, and then developing new property, 23· when they could just, $1 million, scooch that down, 24· take 12 feet off the Orr Ditch, cover it up. 25· · · · · · · ·(Hearing concluded 7:00 p.m.) Page 26 ·1· STATE OF NEVADA· · ·) · · · · · · · · · · · · )· ·ss. ·2· COUNTY OF WASHOE· · )

·3· · · · · · I, KRISTINE BOKELMANN, a Certified Court

·4· Reporter in and for the County of Washoe, State of

·5· Nevada, do hereby certify:

·6· · · · · · That on Thursday, June 22, 2017, at the hour

·7· of 5:45 p.m. of said day, at UNR Innevation Center, 450

·8· Sinclair Street, Reno, Nevada, that I was present and

·9· took stenotype notes of the proceedings entitled

10· herein, and thereafter transcribed the same into

11· typewriting as herein appears.

12· · · · · · That the foregoing transcript is a full,

13· true, and correct transcription of my stenotype notes

14· of said deposition, to the best of my knowledge, skill

15· and ability.

16· · · · · · Dated at Reno, Nevada, this 23rd day of June,

17· 2017.

18· · · · · · · · · · · ______

19· · · · · · · · · · · KRISTINE A. BOKELMANN, CCR #165