1 / 27

Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project

Unanimous APC Recommendations on 3 Items (June 11, 2008). Certification of the Final EA/EIR/EIS for the KBCCIPAdoption of amendments to the Kings Beach Community PlanFinding of Consistency for the KBCCIP with the Final EIS and its recommended mitigations. Certification of the Final EA/EIR/EIS for

mora
Download Presentation

Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project TRPA Governing Board June 25, 2008 Jon-Paul Harries

    2. Unanimous APC Recommendations on 3 Items (June 11, 2008) Certification of the Final EA/EIR/EIS for the KBCCIP Adoption of amendments to the Kings Beach Community Plan Finding of Consistency for the KBCCIP with the Final EIS and its recommended mitigations

    3. Certification of the Final EA/EIR/EIS for the Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project

    5. Environmental Impacts Identified in the Final EIR/EIS (CEQA & TRPA) P. 206 of packet - Summary of Environmental Impacts & Mitigation Measures Significant and Unavoidable Traffic Impacts (Alts. 2 and 4) No Unmitigated Impacts to Environmental Thresholds

    6. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (CEQA & TRPA) Alternative 3 (4 lanes with traffic signals) All potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant Alternatives 2 & 4 (3 lanes with roundabouts) Roadway LOS (exceeds D…2008-10 Days; 2028-108 Days) Signalized intersection LOS (exceeds LOS E for >4 hours) Neighborhood cut-through traffic (>3,000 vehicles/day on portions of Fox & Chipmunk) Transit Operations (30 minute headway)

    7. Estimates of Future Year Traffic Volumes Final EIS, Volume V - Response to Comments (Appendix U) General Types Calibrated Computerized Traffic Model Trend Analysis Buildout of General and Community Plans Trend Analysis for Roadway LOS 1996-2000…..0.15% annual increase 2001-2006…..0.66% annual increase 20-year forecast 3% - 14.1% increase (EIS assumes 48%) Assuming 10% increase in 20 yrs, Roadway LOS is exceeded 40 days/year – less than EIS analysis

    8. Certification of the Final EA/EIR/EIS Consistent with TRPA Code (Chap. 5, Article VI-RoP) & Compact Article VII(d) Findings Purpose & Need / Project Description Reasonable Range of Alternatives** Scope; Scientific Approach to Analysis Noticing & Circulation Public and Agency Comments Response to Comments & Amendments to Draft Identifies Mitigation Measures & Unavoidable Significant Impacts

    9. Adoption of Amendments to the Kings Beach Community Plan Proposed Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project “Hybrid” Alternative

    10. Adoption of Amendments to the Kings Beach Community Plan Page 244 of packet Conforming amendments to approve the KBCCIP Amend two areas of the Vision for 2007 (Chap. I) Vision for Land Use (SR 28 travel lanes) Vision for Transportation (SR 28 travel lanes) Amend Program Control/Action Element C.1 of the Transportation Element (Chap. III) State Route 28 Improvements

    11. Proposed Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project “Hybrid Alternative” P. 277-Draft Permit / P. 283-Plans 3 Lanes with Roundabouts at Coon and Bear 9.5 foot Wide Sidewalks, Class II Bike Lanes Water Quality Improvements Seasonal Parking/Adjacent Street Improvements Landscaping & other amenities

    12. Approval of Proposed CP Amendments and the KBCCIP No Impacts to Environmental Thresholds All recommended EIS mitigation measures are incorporated into the Draft Permit. Proposed amendments and project may produce significant and unavoidable impacts Roadway and Intersection LOS Cut-through traffic* Transit operations* The Governing Board will need to make a finding of overriding consideration

    13. Finding of Overriding Consideration Compact Article VII(d); Code 5.8.D(2) “Specific considerations such as economic, social or technical, make infeasible the mitigation measure or project alternatives discussed in the environmental impact statement on the project.” Feasible: “Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” Compact -Article II(j)

    14. Support to make the finding of overriding consideration Evidence in the EIS (mitigation measures) Direction provided by KB Community Plan Attainment and maintenance of Environmental Thresholds (scenic, water quality, soils) Community visions from Pathway’s place-based planning efforts Public response and support for the project Enhancement of public safety

    15. Consideration of Potential Traffic Mitigation Measures A by–pass road around Kings Beach Remove all frictional elements along SR 28 Driveways, parking, at-grade pedestrian crossings Increased transit operations 23 buses per hour in 2028 (to serve 900 transit passengers) Modify the grid street network (to prevent cut-through) Need 9 minutes of traffic calming and/or additional travel distance Eliminate all through travel routes (close Speckled & Dolly Varden Avenues at SR 267) No feasible mitigation strategy that would sufficiently divert traffic, increase capacity, prevent cut-through, or provide enough transit alternatives

    16. Consideration of Alternatives in EIS No Project Not Feasible Inconsistent with Regional Plan, KBCP, EIP, Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan – Threshold Impacts Alternative 3 4 travel lanes (two each direction) & signals 5’-6’’ nominal width sidewalk (width varies) Bike lanes, landscaping, water quality improvements

    17. Community Plan Considerations No LOS Standard for bicycles or pedestrians Substantial direction to develop a downtown that is focused on providing for and enhancing the bicycle and pedestrian environment P. 250 (CP Amend) & P. 338 (Project) of packet

    18. Community Plan - Chapter I (Visions) Reduce dependency on the automobile The Plan envisions a pedestrian tourist village ("Old Tahoe") oriented toward the main street The downtown will be pedestrian in scale and rely on shared parking, interconnecting sidewalks State Route 28 and side street improvements will reflect a downtown street design in setbacks and landscaping The conceptual design of the sidewalk system includes landscaping, lighting, trash receptacles, and bike racks Scenic: Key roadway treatments are the boulevard entry improvements, the downtown improvements, and undergrounding utilities

    19. Community Plan - Chapter II (Land Use Element) The commercial development is a "strip" and the four lane highway has adversely affected the character of the community Programs should be implemented to facilitate pedestrian activity along the State Highway. The State Route should have a main-street look rather than that of fast traveled highway Development shall be consistent with these uses and shall provide a human scale of walkway, signing, landscaping, and street lighting improvements The sidewalk system will provide pedestrian safety, create a pedestrian orientation, and provide an environment for pedestrian oriented signage

    20. Community Plan Sidewalk Standard Standards and Guidelines for Signage Parking and Design for the Lake Tahoe Region of Placer County (Chapter 19) Projects fronting State Route 28 Downtown shall provide the following improvements for the roadway frontage: (1) Ten feet wide concrete and paver sidewalk

    21. Community Plan Considerations Plan envisions a pedestrian downtown consistent with the proposed improvements Conflict exists between standards/operative direction LOS vs. Sidewalk width, CP direction, Reduced dependency on automobiles No guiding regulations to suggest attainment of LOS should be a priority over all the other goals, objectives, and standards of the Community Plan…opposite is true

    22. Threshold Considerations Scenic Roadway Unit 20B-Kings Beach Final EIS, Volume IV (Appendix P) Currently in non-attainment (13.5) Attainment: >15 4 Lanes: 2 additional points 3 Lanes: 3 additional points Soils & Water Quality Increased areas for coverage removal & landscaping Reduced deicers and fine sediment

    23. Pathway’s Place–Based Planning Efforts P. 256 (CP amend.) & P. 343 (project) of the packet Vision Summary for Placer County (August, 2006) regionalplanningpartners.com Result of three community workshops held between March and July, 2006 Emphasis on improving the image and vitality of gateway areas, pedestrian safety and comfort, and non-motorized access for residents, visitors and employees

    24. Pathway’s Place–Based Planning 2027–The most popular ways of experiencing North Lake Tahoe are not by car Main streets include wide sidewalks and medians and have improved economic vitality and pedestrian/bike safety and comfort Gateway land use planning should emphasize arriving at Lake Tahoe rather than at a typical commercial intersection

    25. Pathway’s Place–Based Planning Hwy 28 would be redesigned to accommodate pedestrians, bikes and parking necessary to support the success of mixed-use main street districts Walking along Hwy 28’s traditional beach towns is now a delightful "postcard experience" Greatest Opportunity: Kings Beach: The greatest opportunities were determined to be in upgrading the community center’s infrastructure, improving their image, and enhancing social and economic performance

    26. Public Feedback on Alternatives Significant public involvement Sierra Business Council (SBC) Workshops 4 Workshops May, 2007 Workshop 3-Investment Exercise Results (~300 participants) Alternative 4 (3 Lanes, 17’ Sidewalks)…....$86,000 Alternative 2 (3 Lanes, 9.5’ Sidewalks)…...$62,600 Alternative 3 (4 Lanes, 5.5’ Sidewalks)…...$46,400 Alternative 1 (No Project)………………...$ 1,200 Final report recommended a hybrid Majority support a three-lane roadway

    27. Safety Considerations Reduced speed/passing in the commercial core Reduced width of SR 28 Fewer lanes for crossing pedestrians Controlled: 2 (with splitter) vs. 5 Uncontrolled: 2(3) vs. 4 Significantly reduced accident rate (Swift & Associates, 2006) 36 feet…….0.16 accidents per mile per year 44 feet…….0.46 accidents per mile per year 288% difference in accident rates Roundabout safety Fewer contact points, reduced speed, splitter island Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Proposed project would be a safer alternative

    28. Summary Unique opportunity - future of Kings Beach No perfect solution Impacts are limited in time versus year-round benefits Substantial support to make the finding of overriding considerations Significantly advances the goals of the KBCP, Thresholds, EIP, Regional Plan Proposed project is a safer alternative Desired by a majority of the community

More Related