HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/10/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDACITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Chambers
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
ADJOURNED MEETING
July 10, 2012
6 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive
Drainage and Landscaping Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone
Associates, LLC. (staff: Lindsay Kuntz, Jason Stutzman; 15 minute discussion)
Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing project
called the Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”) located at 360 Linden Street. The
Development requires off-site drainage and landscaping improvements and access improvements
on adjacent City-owned property which is maintained as the Old Fort Collins Heritage Park,
adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. In order to facilitate the installation of the
planned improvements, the Developer has requested a 11,198 square foot non-exclusive
drainage and landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from
the City on the City property.
4. Other Business.
5. Adjournment.
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
July 10, 2012
after the Adjourned Meeting
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Colorado Department of Transportation Presentation Regarding the Design for I-25 from
Carpenter Road/SH 392 to Mulberry Street/SH 14. (staff: Kathleen Bracke, Amy Lewin,
Mark Jackson; CDOT Representative: Myron Hora, District 4; 30 minute discussion)
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is embarking on the design for I-25
from approximately Carpenter Road/SH 392 to approximately Mulberry Street/SH 14.
CDOT staff will provide a brief review of the North I-25 Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Preferred Alternative and proposed Phasing; information on the current
design project, including project team and schedule; and will solicit input from City
Council and request guidance for continued staff and Council participation.
3. Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy. (staff: Diane Jones; 30 minute discussion)
For many years, the City has waived fees for Housing Authority projects under a state
law that exempts housing authorities from fees and taxes, and a local ordinance that
defines the particular fees that are to be waived. For the most part, the projects for which
fees were waived by the City have been relatively small.
July 10, 2012
In 2011, the Housing Authority partnered with CARE Housing, a non-profit agency, on
an affordable housing project in the Provincetown subdivision. While the interest of the
Housing Authority in the project was small (technically a .001% partner but guaranteed
up to $1.4 million of unanticipated costs), a waiver of City fees for the CARE Housing
Provincetown Project was requested and granted by the City Council. The fee waiver
totaled $557,378.
Council asked staff to examine the fee waiver policy for the Housing Authority and
provide some options for future projects, especially those in which the Housing Authority
has only a minor interest.
This work session is to review the options staff has considered and to discuss with City
Council a recommended approach.
4. Natural Areas Department Update: Overview, Budget, Land Conservation. (staff: John
Stokes; 1 hour discussion)
The Natural Areas Department is celebrating its 20th birthday this year. There have been
many remarkable achievements including land conservation and stewardship, the
provision of outstanding recreation enhancements, and excellent outreach programs. The
Department is in good financial condition, but faces a significant long-term challenge due
to the potential 2018 expiration of Larimer County’s Help Preserve Open Space quarter-
cent sales tax. The County resource provides about one-third of the total revenues to the
Department and is vital to its operations. This agenda item summary provides an
overview of the long-term budget and associated challenges. It also provides a brief
overview of the Department’s activities as well as a description of the Department’s
approach to land conservation.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
DATE: July 10, 2012
STAFF: Lindsay Kuntz
Jason Stutzman
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 3
SUBJECT
First Reading of Ordinance No. 061, 2012, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Non-Exclusive Drainage and Landscaping
Easement and an Access Easement on City Property to Cornerstone Associates, LLC.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) is planning a 1.97 acre affordable housing project called the Legacy
Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”) located at 360 Linden Street. The Development requires off-site
drainage and landscaping improvements and access improvements on adjacent City-owned property which is
maintained as the Old Fort Collins Heritage Park, adjacent to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. In order to
facilitate the installation of the planned improvements, the Developer has requested a 11,198 square foot non-
exclusive drainage and landscaping easement and 321 square foot non-exclusive access easement from the City on
the City property.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Legacy Senior Residences PDP is a proposed development located at 360 Linden Street, just north of Willow Street.
An Administrative Hearing for the project was held on June 11, 2012. The Development will occupy 1.97 acres on
Linden Street and include 72 one and two-bedroom affordable apartments for seniors. The plans for the Development
require a 20-foot wide off-site drainage easement on adjacent property owned by the City in order to provide storm
drainage for the development. The drainage improvements to be installed consist of a drainage swale and an outfall
to the Poudre River, in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Old Town Stormwater Master Plan. The outfall location
is within an existing run-down to the Poudre River and will not impact any existing trees or vegetation. In addition, the
outfall is designed so that all activities will occur outside of the Poudre River floodway. The outfall will be installed
using open cut trenching and will be designed and constructed to the City standards and in coordination with City
Parks, Stormwater, and Planning staff. After installation of the outfall is complete, the City property will be restored
and reseeded with a native seed mix approved by the City’s Environmental Planner.
In addition, the City Planning Department has requested the installation of landscaping improvements consisting of
native grasses, shrubs and trees within the drainage easement area for the purposes of serving as a transition and
buffer zone improvement between the River and the Development . As such, the Developer has requested a drainage
and landscaping easement from the City. City staff is continuing to work with the Developer to finalize the boundary
of the requested drainage easement area.
The Developer has also requested an access easement on the City Property in order to install a pedestrian connection
to the Poudre Trail.
Parks staff has reviewed the easement requests and believes that conveyance of the requested easements will not
interfere with the City’s intended use of the City property as a park.
An alternative drainage design option for the Development would require a large amount of on-site detention,
modifications to the existing stormwater pipes under the newly constructed right of way of Linden Street, and may
conflict with existing utility lines in Linden Street. The Developer would still be required to obtain a Landscaping
Easement for the landscaping improvements noted above and the Access Easement as required by the City’s Land
Use Code.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Real Estate Services reviewed comparable sales and the Larimer County Assessor’s data to prepare a value estimate
for the requested easements. The consideration for the drainage and landscaping easement, access easement, and
the easement processing fee for Real Estate Services is $6,200.
July 10, 2012 -2- ITEM 3
The Developer will be responsible for all costs of installation of the easement improvements and for the restoration
of the City Property. In addition, the developer will maintain the landscape improvements in perpetuity, ultimately
reducing the City’s costs for maintenance on this portion of Park property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The outfall and drainage area improvements are required in accordance with the City’s Old Town Stormwater Master
Plan and comply with the City’s Stormwater Design Criteria Manual. In addition, the landscape improvements
associated with the development are required in order to comply with Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, including
the Poudre River buffer standards.
The existing vegetation cover on the site is dominated by smooth brome, a non-native grass species, which contributes
little to the site’s habitat diversity. All disturbed areas will be restored with a native seed mix and native shrubs and
trees. As proposed, the project will provide an additional 13 native shade trees and 44 native shrubs to the area
requested by this easement.
The off-site drainage and landscape easement is located within the boundaries of the area affected by the 2004
Administrative Order on Consent between the EPA, Public Service Company, Schrader Oil Company and the City,
and related requirements will apply to the proposed easement and work. Easement terms and conditions will be used
to incorporate these requirements.
The off-site drainage and landscape easement is also located within the boundaries of a former municipal landfill which
is subject to a Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) approved Soil Characterization and
Management Plan (SCMP). The requirements of the SCMP must be taken into account and complied with in
connection with any activities within the boundaries of the former landfill, and will be included as conditions of the
easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On June 11, 2012, a Type 1 Hearing for the Project Development Plan for Legacy Senior Residences was held. City
staff received comments from Save the Poudre noting concerns with the proposed development and off-site
easements. The concerns noted that related to the requested easements included:
• “The project may propose to drain stormwater directly into the Poudre River which may impact river flows,
water quality, and aquatic wildlife.”
• “The project will be built in and abutting the Poudre River’s “Natural Habitat Buffer Zone.”
• “The project increases human and vehicle traffic abutting the Poudre River’s sensitive ecological corridor.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Maps
2. Site Photographs
3 Area Environmental Detail
Site Photographs Attachment 2
N
Proposed
Development
Site
Drainage
Outfall
Location
Site Location –
View from
Linden Street
ORDINANCE NO. 061, 2012
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE DRAINAGE AND
LANDSCAPING EASEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT ON CITY PROPERTY TO
CORNERSTONE ASSOCIATES, LLC
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of a parcel of real property located in Fort Collins,
Colorado, described as Lot 2, Northside Aztlan Community Center, and known as Old Fort
Collins Heritage Park (the “City Property”); and
WHEREAS, Cornerstone Associates, LLC (the “Developer”) has requested a drainage
and landscaping easement, as described on Exhibit “A”, attached and incorporated herein (the
“Drainage and Landscaping Easement”), and an access easement, as described on Exhibit “B”
attached and incorporated herein (the “Access Easement”) on the City Property for the benefit of
its development, Legacy Senior Residences PDP (the “Development”), which the Developer is
planning to construct at 360 Linden Street; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Drainage and Landscaping Easement would be used to provide
stormwater outfall from the Development’s detention pond across the City Property to the
Poudre River and for the installation and maintenance of landscaping improvements to serve as a
transition and buffer between the Development and the Poudre River; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Access Easement would be used to provide a pedestrian
connection between the Development and the Poudre Trail located on the City Property; and
WHEREAS, the Developer would compensate the City $6,200 for the Easements and for
staff processing time; and
WHEREAS, the Easements are located within the area covered by the 2004
Administrative Order on Consent between the Environmental Protection Agency, Public Service
Company, Schrader Oil Company and the City, and within the boundaries of a former landfill
subject to a State-approved soil Characterization and Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the Easements the City would require the
Developer to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent and the Soil
Characterization Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, City staff has identified no negative impacts to the City resulting from the
granting of the Easements; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a) of the City Code provides that the City Council is
authorized to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in
the name of the City, provided that the Council first finds, by ordinance, that such sale or other
disposition is in the best interests of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Drainage and Landscaping Easement and
Access Easement on the City Property to the Developer as provided herein is in the best interests
of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Drainage and Landscaping Easement and Access Easement to the
Developer on terms and conditions consistent with this Ordinance, together with such additional
terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are
necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City, including, but not limited to, any
necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the Easements, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of the Easements.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 10th day of
July, A.D. 2012, and to be presented for final passage on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Interim City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 17th day of July, A.D. 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center
Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3
Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Steve Roy, City Attorney
Rita Harris, Interim City Clerk
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
WORK SESSION
July 10, 2012
after the Adjourned Meeting
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Colorado Department of Transportation Presentation Regarding the Design for I-25 from
Carpenter Road/SH 392 to Mulberry Street/SH 14. (staff: Kathleen Bracke, Amy Lewin,
Mark Jackson; CDOT Representative: Myron Hora, District 4; 30 minute discussion)
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is embarking on the design for I-25
from approximately Carpenter Road/SH 392 to approximately Mulberry Street/SH 14.
CDOT staff will provide a brief review of the North I-25 Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Preferred Alternative and proposed Phasing; information on the current
design project, including project team and schedule; and will solicit input from City
Council and request guidance for continued staff and Council participation.
3. Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy. (staff: Diane Jones; 30 minute discussion)
For many years, the City has waived fees for Housing Authority projects under a state
law that exempts housing authorities from fees and taxes, and a local ordinance that
defines the particular fees that are to be waived. For the most part, the projects for which
fees were waived by the City have been relatively small.
July 10, 2012
In 2011, the Housing Authority partnered with CARE Housing, a non-profit agency, on
an affordable housing project in the Provincetown subdivision. While the interest of the
Housing Authority in the project was small (technically a .001% partner but guaranteed
up to $1.4 million of unanticipated costs), a waiver of City fees for the CARE Housing
Provincetown Project was requested and granted by the City Council. The fee waiver
totaled $557,378.
Council asked staff to examine the fee waiver policy for the Housing Authority and
provide some options for future projects, especially those in which the Housing Authority
has only a minor interest.
This work session is to review the options staff has considered and to discuss with City
Council a recommended approach.
4. Natural Areas Department Update: Overview, Budget, Land Conservation. (staff: John
Stokes; 1 hour discussion)
The Natural Areas Department is celebrating its 20th birthday this year. There have been
many remarkable achievements including land conservation and stewardship, the
provision of outstanding recreation enhancements, and excellent outreach programs. The
Department is in good financial condition, but faces a significant long-term challenge due
to the potential 2018 expiration of Larimer County’s Help Preserve Open Space quarter-
cent sales tax. The County resource provides about one-third of the total revenues to the
Department and is vital to its operations. This agenda item summary provides an
overview of the long-term budget and associated challenges. It also provides a brief
overview of the Department’s activities as well as a description of the Department’s
approach to land conservation.
5. Other Business.
6. Adjournment.
DATE: July 10, 2012
STAFF: Kathleen Bracke, Amy
Lewin, Mark Jackson
CDOT Representative: Myron Hora,
Region 4
Pre-taped staff presentation: none
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Colorado Department of Transportation Presentation Regarding the Design for I-25 from Carpenter
Road/SH 392 to Mulberry Street/SH 14.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is embarking on the design for I-25 from
approximately Carpenter Road/SH 392 to approximately Mulberry Street/SH 14. CDOT staff will
provide a brief review of the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Preferred
Alternative and proposed Phasing; information on the current design project, including project team
and schedule; and will solicit input from City Council and request guidance for continued staff and
Council participation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
CDOT staff will be providing an overview of the upcoming design process for I-25, including
opportunities for local communities to be involved in this process. At this time, CDOT is seeking
input from City Council regarding the following questions. This input will be used to prepare an
appropriate strategy for City staff participation and community engagement throughout CDOT’s
design process:
1. What are the key issues for Fort Collins on the I-25 segment in design?
2. How often, and in what method, would City Council prefer to see project updates?
3. Does City Council support continued participation by City staff?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
CDOT completed the North I-25 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in December 2011. During
the EIS process, CDOT coordinated with City staff and presented information to the Council,
culminating with the adoption of 2011-090, adopted September 20, 2011, providing “that the
comments contained in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference,
should be presented to CDOT as the City’s documented comments on the North I-25 final EIS.”
July 10, 2012 Page 2
In an effort to maintain the established relationships and spirit of cooperation, the I-25 project team
is meeting with entities within the design project limits. CDOT is seeking continued interaction as
designs are finalized and this is the first step in that direction.
The project team presented an update to the City’s Transportation Board at its meeting on June 20,
2012, and received feedback from the Board.
CDOT is just beginning the design phase of this project and is currently engaging numerous
communities along the North Front Range.
Next steps for this ongoing process include incorporating the feedback from these meetings with
City Councils and local agency staff into the project approach to meet the specific needs for each
community. CDOT will come back to the City Council to present updates at key milestones
throughout the duration of the project, along with additional community outreach efforts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transportation Board minutes, June 20, 2012
2. Resolution 2011-090
3. CDOT North I-25 Design Powerpoint presentation
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 1 of 22
City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
1
Travel to Denver is emphasized to the exclusion of travel to Longmont and Boulder,
which are apparently at least as important destinations from Northern Colorado. The
analysis should address a broader spectrum of trips. For example the graphics of
travel patterns in Figure 4-6 indicate no riders going to or from Longmont, assuming
all passengers are going to Denver. Really?
1. All trip types are covered by the analysis. Trips to Boulder and Longmont are also included in the analysis; however
Figure 4-6 only depicts riders on the specific transit system improvements proposed by this project. Riders transferring
to/from the RTD FasTracks and bus system are not directly illustrated, but their activity is discerned through the rail
access/egress in the pie chart. For example, at the Sugar Mill station in Longmont, it can be seen that about three- eights
of the riders getting on or getting off the commuter rail transfer to/from the FasTracks Northwest Rail line.
Comment addressed - Commuter Rail and
Express Bus routes in the FEIS Preferred
Alternative will provide service to both
Downtown Denver and Boulder to serve the
different destinations for Fort Collins travelers.
A
2
Connections to other transit options, in particular the North and Northwest routes
proposed for FasTracks, are vital. How does each alternative interact with them?
2. All of the alternatives are connected to the future FasTracks system. Package A extends the end of the FasTracks North
Metro rail line to terminate at the Downtown Transit Center in Fort Collins. Package A also extends the end of the
FasTracks Northwest rail line to a new station in southern Longmont, labeled the Sugar Mill station. This would be a
shared station with the North Metro line to Fort Collins, thus allowing rail-to-rail transfers. Package B interacts with the
FasTracks system in downtown Denver, allowing BRT passengers to access all the FasTracks rail lines as well as the
RTD bus routes serving downtown Denver. In addition, the BRT routes in Package B stop at Wagon Road, a major park-
n-Ride in the northern metro area at I-25 and 120th Avenue that is served by numerous bus routes. The Preferred
Alternative includes the commuter rail FasTracks connectivity points as described for Package A, and it includes express
bus to downtown Denver, allowing connectivity to all the FasTracks corridors.
Comment addressed - The Preferred Alternative,
including the Commuter Rail and Express Bus
routes, are now integrated with the future
FasTracks system routes. A
3
Does the analysis look to the future, anticipating high fuel prices, demand pricing of
car travel, and possible alternatives to commuting?
3. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the
price of fuel would be impracticable. Similarly, the forecasts assume the portion of work-at-home and other alternative
commute activities remain at similar percentages to that experienced today. If the price of gas or commute characteristics
dramatically change, these could indeed influence travel behavior patterns. (Information about this is in the FEIS in
Section 4.2.9). The EIS has openly acknowledged that the future price of gas is an unknown and therefore introduces an
uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6.
Staff continues to be concerned regarding the
travel demand forecast methodology used in the
FEIS, particularly that it is substantially
underestimating future transit ridership
projections. We appreciate that CDOT openly
acknowledges these challenges. For example, the
FEIS states that if fuel prices were to be factored
into the forecasts, the transit projections could be
up to 90% higher and could be up to 40% higher
than projected based on recent data from
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 2 of 22
City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
“Transportation Master Plan” as part of the
2010-11 “Plan Fort Collins” process. These plans
emphasize higher density, transit oriented
development” in the core areas of our
community and support infill/redevelopment
along “Enhanced Travel Corridors” such as the
Mason Corridor and Harmony Road corridor.
Also, the North Front Range MPO has recently
updated their travel demand model and staff
recommends that this new information be used
for future transportation projections for transit
and highway improvements to factor in updated
land use and transportation data sources.
5
In Figures 4-6 and 4-7, the E-W ridership numbers are totally different. Why? 5. The amount of riders on the east-west feeder buses differ between the alternatives because these buses
serve different
regional transit systems, with different route alignments and station locations. In Package A, east-west ridership is high,
as the bus feeder services to commuter rail also serve local inter-community trips. In Package B, feeder bus riders to
BRT along I-25 do not serve as many inter-city trips. In the Preferred Alternative, the feeder routes are designed similar
to Package B, and do not have as high a ridership as Package A.
Comment addressed A
6
The financial analysis in Chapter 6 is very skimpy. Is such a superficial analysis all
that is possible?
6. Cost and financial information is provided in Chapters 2 and 6 of the Final EIS. The Cost Estimate Review report,
which provides detailed information on the Preferred Alternative and Phase 1 cost estimates, is included in Cost Estimate
Review Final Report, July 2010, FHWA. For more information see the Cost Estimate Review Report, which is a
supporting technical report to this Final EIS and is available for review at CDOT Region 4.
Comment addressed, EIS financial analysis
seems to be more thorough than in DEIS. Larger
policy concern continues regarding the future of
multimodal transportation financing for our
region. The City of Fort Collins would like to
continue to be part of regional discussions
regarding potential funding strategies and
partnerships needed to implement the Preferred
Alternative shown in the FEIS as well as other
local and regional transportation needs. There
are many good partnership models from current
projects such as the SH392 & I-25 project, North
College corridor improvements, Jefferson/SH14
project, Flex transit route, and other joint
projects. We look forward to continuing to work
with CDOT and other regional partners to further
completion of these important regional
connections.
C
7
Is sufficient attention paid to freight transportation? The focus seems to be totally on
moving people.
7. Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The agreement with BNSF will specify the
infrastructure and operating plan requirements to allow both passenger service and freight service. The volume of truck
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 3 of 22
City Council Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
alternatives. A summary of environmental impacts is included in the Executive Summary and Chapter 7, and detailed
information is provided in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
9
Given the enthusiasm which citizens are showing for rail, is the estimate of transit
ridership of the two alternatives accurate?
9. The transit ridership model was calibrated and validated to observed travel patterns in the Denver area. Projections
are based on empirical behavior of travelers, as well as future geographical projections of population and employment
and estimated trip origins and destinations. Recent travel survey data collected by RTD and DRCOG indicates that, as
you suggest, current actual ridership is higher than had been simulated in the model. Section 4.2.6.3 describes the
potential effect these behavior changes might have on ridership. For example, commute rail ridership might be higher by
about 40% than the earlier model estimates.
See comment to #3 above. C
10
It is important for the North I-25 EIS and recommended improvements to address the
link between transportation and environmental sustainability as well as to reflect the
visions and values of the communities.
10. The North I-25 EIS provides information to decision-makers about alternatives for transportation improvements and
their adverse impacts and benefits. Information is included in the Draft and the Final EIS about transportation impacts
and benefits as well as those related to sustainability (land use, compatibility with community visions, air q
See staff comments in both the transportation
and environmental topic areas.
C
11
It is important for transportation improvements to provide linkages between the core
areas of our communities. This “core to core” link is a very important part of Fort
Collins’ community values.
11. Comment noted. Staff continues to support this position and this is
reflected in the City’s adopted Transportation
Master Plan and City Plan. This comment is also
linked to the staff comments regarding phasing
of the Preferred Alternative Commuter Rail
service.
C
12
It seems that Package A addresses those core community values. This is not a
statement of a preferred package, but more general thoughts and feelings for this
alternative.
12. No Response Needed The Preferred Alternative, including the
proposed highway, interchange, and transit
system improvements, is consistent with City
Plan and the Transportation Master Plan
(updated in 2010-11).
A
City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
13
Good information to discuss and North I-25 EIS process should address social,
environmental, economic needs in addition to transportation needs.
These needs are all discussed in the document
Comment addressed A
14
Transportation needs to include moving people and commerce – goods & services.
These needs are both discussed in the document
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 4 of 22
City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
19
McKee Farm land may be restricted from Impacts due to GoCo agreement and/or
other agreements with funding partners.
The Commuter Rail alignment is located within existing rail right-of-way.
Comment addressed A
20
Concerns regarding water quality and storm water contaminants Stormwater Best Management Practices have been incorporated which will reduce the predicted increases in stormwater
constituent loading
See comment in Storm Water section C
21
Concerns regarding CDOT’s willingness to address City comments. Tom Anzia,
representing Felsburg Holt & Ullevig and serving as the consultant project manager
for CDOT’s North I-25 EIS project team, stated that they are responding to all
comments received on the draft document and take these comments very seriously.
They will be doing more detailed analysis as part of the current work effort as well as
during the preparation for the Final EIS document.
All comments made on the DEIS will be addressed in the FEIS
Many comments addressed in FEIS; several
still remaining as noted in these comments C
22
Interest in recent CDOT workshops. Input from Council members is important to
share with CDOT and representatives from other communities.
We have been doing this
CDOT to provide summaries from FEIS
public meetings to local agencies. C
23
CDOT is hearing a lot of enthusiasm for Package A Commuter Rail service from
many communities because it serves the existing, largest population centers and
people like the idea of using rail service.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative reflects this community interest; it includes Commuter Rail from Package A, as well as
highway elements from Package B
Comment addressed A
24
Starting to hear conflicts arise between communities east of I-25 due to concerns
about current land use patterns and population centers compared with future growth
areas.
Observation noted; the FEIS compares and contrasts the potential land use effects of Package A, B, and the Preferred
Alternative
Comment addressed A
25
The average trip length on I-25 is less than three miles, so the highway is being used
for local trips, rather than the regional and inter-regional trips that it is intended for.
Cities need to address future improvements to other local north/south arterials to
service the shorter distance trips to provide alternative routes to I-25.
Hopefully communities will begin to address these local improvements
Impact/benefit of I-25 improvements will
need to be analyzed in the future when the
NFRMPO model is updated C
26
More insight on rail alternatives needs to be examined and EIS needs to coordinate
with other rail studies.
Extensive analysis of rail alternatives was conducted during the development of the DEIS and the Preferred Alternative.
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 5 of 22
City Council Comments (February 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
32
Concern was expressed by Council regarding the number of commuters that leave
Fort Collins daily to commute to Denver and/or other communities. Commuter rail
could potentially change nature of Fort Collins to become bedroom community to
Denver. Project should compare Fort Collins’ numbers to the numbers leaving our
neighboring communities. Fort Collins’ numbers are much lower.
Agreed, the number of commuters leaving Fort Collins is lower than some other communities. In fact, data from the MPO
and other sources has also indicated that the share of all northern area commuters who travel to the Denver metro area is
relatively low. The improvements proposed in the EIS do not noticeably change this pattern.
Comment addressed
A
City Council Comments (October 2009 Memo) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
33
Prioritizing transit/commuter rail sooner versus highway widening improvements.
Implementing transit/commuter rail services earlier could defer or eliminate the need
for future highway widening.
The phasing plan developed with the TAC introduces both transit and highway improvements in Phase 1. The highway
has aging infrastructure issues that need to be addressed in early phases. Express bus on I-25 and commuter bus along
US-85 are initiated in Phase 1.
See comments on phasing C
34
Need to focus on best ways to move people, not vehicles, to meet the long-term needs
of our region;
The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes Commuter Rail, a sustainable regional transportation connection between the
core of communities. The I-25 highway facility needs rebuilding to address aging infrastructure needs. The FEIS
Preferred Alternative includes a Tolled Express Lane (TEL) on I-25, allowing HOV vehicles free travel in a restricted
lane hence supporting the alternative modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Express Bus service, with connecting bus
service to the communities, also will serve the I-25 corridor in the TEL lanes.
Comment addressed, however continued
concerns such as transit ridership projections C
35
Consider emerging larger-scale trends (fuel prices, new energy sources, demographics,
etc.) that will determine transportation needs/options in the future ;
We are aware of these trends that effect future travel. These issues will be qualitatively addressed in the FEIS.
See comments on modeling C
36
Concern over how to serve commerce related transportation (freight, goods &
services);
Freight rail service will continue to be maintained in the corridor. The volume of future freight truck traffic is accounted
for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS. The design of I-25 and its interchanges will meet the
requirements of freight trucks.
Comment addressed A
37
Concern over a consensus approach applied by CDOT to identify and prioritize
improvements;
Please elaborate on this concern?
38
Support to preserve right-of-way for commuter rail as part of phase one improvements;
We have heard this support; Commuter Rail ROW preservation is in Phase 1
Comment addressed A
39
Need for more detailed analysis and data driven approach.
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 6 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
44
General comment: Transportation Planning staff agrees with the purpose and need
of the North I-25 DEIS. CDOT, FHWA, FTA, and their consultant team, have been
helpful to work with City staff over the years during the development of the EIS
alternatives analysis process and development of the DEIS document.
The DEIS packages “A” and “B” reflect input from City staff regarding
compatibility with the City’s Transportation Master Plan, Master Street Plan,
Transfort Strategic Plan (currently being updated) and the Mason Corridor Master
Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Preliminary Engineering documents. Either
of the DEIS proposed packages can serve Fort Collins’ transportation needs in the
future to address both highway and transit improvements.
It is important to note that further discussions are necessary with the Fort Collins
Boards, Commissions, and City Council in 2009 to reach a formal recommendation
to CDOT, and their partnering agencies, regarding a preferred package of
improvements.
The following summary includes a preview of staff comments for both packages and
notes concerns that will need to be addressed by CDOT during the development of
the preferred alternative and the Final EIS document in 2009.
1. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your involvement. Your input is critical to the success of this project. Transportation Planning staff would like to offer
the same appreciation to CDOT staff and their
consultant team for their work with City staff and
City Council over the years and supports the
recommended Preferred Alternative however we
offer these formal comments on the FEIS for
CDOT’s consideration at this time as well as for
input for the future implementation phases of the
highway and transit improvements.
A
Travel Model:
45
In terms of more specific comments and concerns, Transportation Planning staff
recommends that future travel demand forecast modeling be updated by CDOT and
their consulting team as part of the selection process for the preferred alternative and
Final EIS analysis process to ensure that the most recent transportation and land-use
data is used for determining long-term transportation improvements. Also, separate
land use data assumptions should be developed for each of the two packages of
alternatives based on the expected land use changes that would be driven by the
proposed transportation corridor improvements to more accurate reflect the inter-
relationship between land use and transportation planning.
2. The FEIS includes updated long-term forecasts to reflect 2035 RTP socioeconomic and network conditions. Agreed,
separate land use forecasts would more accurately reflect the inter-relationship between land use and transportation
infrastructure. Since the highway improvements are generally similar between packages, an expert panel concluded that
future growth along I-25 would not substantially differ between the packages. The commuter rail of Package A and the
Preferred Alternative would tend to attract growth near station areas in city centers, in contrast to the I-25 BRT and
express bus of Package B and the Preferred Alternative, but the magnitude of the differences would be relatively small.
For these reasons, the results of the comparison and evaluation of alternatives with different land use sets would not have
differed appreciably from the results with a single land use data set. Separate forecasts were not prepared due to the
constant need for prudent use of study resources.
CDOT did update the long-term forecasts to
2035 which should more accurately reflect the
future travel demand. However see prior staff
comments items regarding continuing modeling
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 7 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
48
Package A
The proposed improvements shown in Package A, the regional commuter rail
service and addition of general purpose lanes on I-25, are very effective to address
high-quality transit system improvements as well as general highway travel, safety,
and freight improvements to serve the Fort Collins community and North Front
Range region.
Package A includes the commuter rail transit alternative using the existing BNSF
railroad tracks through Fort Collins and staff agrees with the three passenger rail
stations shown at the City’s Downtown Transit Center, Colorado State University’s
Main Campus, and at the City’s South Transit Center. Staff appreciates CDOT co-
locating the commuter rail stations at the same stations as the City’s Mason Corridor
Bus Rapid Transit stations to allow for easy passenger transfers. This convenience
and potential travel time savings could affect the transit ridership projections and
that is one of the reasons for staff’s request that future travel modeling (roadway &
transit) be completed by the North I-25 EIS team.
5. The modeling for the FEIS has been updated to include the Mason Street BRT since it is a committed project; the effect
of co-locating the three stations in Fort Collins is reflected in the ridership projections for Package A and the Preferred
Alternative. Similarly, the FEIS modeling for Package B includes the Mason BRT and the effect of a common BRT station
at the South Transit Center.
The updated modeling reflects the City's
comments regarding adding Mason BRT.
A
49
City Transportation Planning staff does not agree with the need for double-tracking
of the BNSF railroad tracks from Prospect Road north through Downtown and
believes that the existing single track is sufficient to operate service through
Colorado State University (CSU) main campus and through Downtown Fort Collins,
as the DEIS states is shown for the downtown Loveland area. Staff has previously
shared this comment with CDOT staff and their consultant team.
From Transportation Planning’s perspective, the regional commuter rail transit
alternative, while initially more costly than bus service, is an effective transit
configuration for Fort Collins’ and Northern Colorado’s long-term future because it
centers high-quality regional transit service in the heart of the communities along
the US287/BNSF railroad corridor to serve the largest population centers.
Particularly for the Fort Collins community, the regional commuter rail corridor and
three passenger stations are located along our highest density population centers
such as Downtown, CSU, and the US287/College Avenue corridor. Locating the
regional transit service along this high population corridor allows for easy access
from local activity centers and neighborhoods and minimizes the need for people to
drive or take local transit routes to access regional transit service.
6. Note that Package A has single track between University and the downtown transit center. During development of the
Preferred Alternative, single track for the corridor between South Transit Center and downtown Fort Collins was
evaluated in further detail, as you suggest. As a result, it was concluded that single track would have fewer
environmental impacts while accommodating the Mason Corridor BRT. However, it was necessary to revise the service
pattern on this segment of the corridor. The service plan for the Preferred Alternative consists of hourly service to/from
downtown Fort Collins, with 30 minute service maintained to the South Transit Center during the peak periods. Package
A and the Preferred Alternative serve the population centers of Fort Collins as you describe. Package B only directly
serves the College Avenue Corridor at the South Transit Center.
The Preferred Alternative supports the single
track as suggested by the City.
A
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 8 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
51
Also, the long-term return on investment that is likely to occur within Fort Collins
due to the location of the three proposed regional commuter rail stations would be a
strong economic catalyst for additional higher density, mixed-use, transit-oriented
development (TOD) over and above what is currently envisioned as part of the
Mason Corridor. The potential synergy of high quality local and regional transit
service along this central corridor of the Fort Collins community will greatly serve
our long-range economic vitality and environmental stewardship values, as well as
address our established transportation and land-use goals.
The regional commuter rail service along the existing BNSF railroad tracks/corridor
will also link Fort Collins into Denver’s Regional Transportation District (RTD)
FasTrack “Northwest Rail Corridor” commuter rail line that begins in Longmont.
This provides a cost-effective opportunity to link the North Front Range regional
commuter rail improvements proposed in the North I-25 EIS to the already approved
and funded FasTrack’s Northwest Rail Corridor. This is a synergistic way to link
regional commuter rail passengers from Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud to both
Denver Union Station as well as to the Boulder area.
In regards to adding the general purpose lanes shown along I-25, these additional
travel lanes will address safety concerns along I-25 and at the interchanges shown
within Fort Collins area, as well as serve as an effective means to address current
and future vehicle traffic capacity needs (automobile & freight traffic). These
general purpose lanes will not limit the use of the new travel lanes to high-
occupancy vehicles or require tolling. It is important for the EIS to address both
passenger and freight transportation needs.
8. Yes, Package A and the Preferred Alternative connect to the RTD FasTracks system via commuter rail at both
Longmont and the North Metro end-of-line, and in downtown Denver. In contrast, the BRT of Package B connects only in
downtown Denver. We agree with your assessment that commuter rail stations will be a strong economic catalyst for
higher density, mixed use TOD. Values of TOD adjacent properties in the US have increased from 6.4 percent to more
than 40 percent in the past few years. Office buildings have fewer vacancies if located within walking distance of a transit
station. As you state, the general purpose lanes of Package A provide additional capacity and are not restricted by
vehicle type. The Preferred Alternative includes adding both general purpose lanes and tolled express lanes to I-25 which
will similarly address both passenger and freight traffic needs.
The Preferred Alternative, particularly commuter
rail, is in line with the City of Fort Collins goals
to support TOD development, and providing
regional connections.
A
52
Package B:
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed CDOT’s DEIS Package “B” that
includes regional Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service originating from the City’s South
Transit Center and making stops at the intersection of Harmony & Timberline roads
as well as at the Harmony & I-25 Transportation Transfer Center and then traveling
to the Denver area along the center of I-25 in the High Occupancy/Toll (HOT) lanes,
also referred to in the DEIS as the Tolled Express Lanes (TEL).
The South Transit Center would be a primary connection point for passengers
transferring to/from the regional BRT service to the City’s Mason Corridor BRT
service as well as other local Transfort routes. In addition, the regional BRT service
would link into the City’s future plans for the Harmony Road “Enhanced Travel
Corridor” shown on the City’s adopted Structure Plan, Transportation Master Plan,
and Transfort Strategic Plan. The down side of the regional BRT alternative is that it
does not directly serve the core population and activity centers within Fort Collins
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 9 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
toll for speed/convenience purposes. Staff’s concern is that the major improvement
would not address general travel needs for people who cannot afford the tolls nor do
these specially designated lanes address the needs of additional highway capacity for
freight vehicles.
53
General:
Overall, Package “A” and “B” are both sound alternatives and propose important
transportation safety and capacity improvements for highway users and transit
passengers to address the purpose and needs identified for the EIS process.
However, it is important for the North I-25 EIS and community stakeholders to
develop effective long-term solutions for our inter- and intra-regional transportation
needs based on the anticipated future needs for travel, land-use, energy
consumption, sustainability, and environmental concerns – not based on past needs
and trends. The next 20, 30, and 50 years will bring significant changes to our
communities, region, state, nation, and world and we need to be planning for the
future – not based on the past.
All of the proposed improvements (highway and transit) come at a steep price tag
and CDOT, FHWA, and FTA will need to work collaboratively with all of the North
Front Range communities, counties, and metropolitan planning organizations to
strategize workable financing options for any of these proposed future regional
transportation infrastructure improvements.
Transportation Planning staff will continue to be actively involved with CDOT,
FHWA, and FTA throughout the development of the final EIS document and will
make every effort to convey the input and concerns from the Fort Collins’ City
organization, City Council, and community members to influence the final
recommendations for these significant regional improvements.
10. The Preferred Alternative has been developed through a collaborative decision making process with communities and
stakeholders from the study area. The future horizon year of 2035 has been used in the analyses presented in the Final
EIS. The 2035 socio-economic projections use the adopted land use data sets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. Each of the
alternatives provides multi-modal solutions that provide transportation choices for future travelers. Note the evaluation
for 2035 does not rely on a historical trend analysis but utilizes a travel model based on reasonable assumptions of future
transportation conditions.
At this point in the planning process, the only funds identified in the FEIS are those likely to come in through traditional
funding sources over the next 25 years. These funds, and the projects associated with these funds are identified in the
fiscally constrained regional transportation plans (NFRMPO and DRCOG). While the toll lanes have the ability to
generate revenue and provide opportunities for bonding, the FEIS does not make any recommendations for or against
implementation through this means of funding. Additional funding identified by state, federal and local agencies will
enable projects in Phases 2 and 3 to be implemented sooner. Fort Collins will continue to participate in determining how
and which projects are funded in the North Front Range through their role on the NFRMPO Technical Advisory
Committee and the NFRMPO Planning Council. The TAC advises the Council and the council is the decision-making
body. Fort Collins has a seat on each.
Thank you for your continued involvement in the process.
Fort Collins appreciates CDOT's efforts to
include collaborative input from a wide spectrum
of communities and stakeholders. The Preferred
Alternative is consistent with the City
transportation and land use plans.
One of the most significant concerns the City
continues to have regarding the FEIS document
is the proposed phasing.
Implementation phasing for the various
transportation improvements, specifically the
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 10 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
Staff TAC and RCC representatives have voiced
our concerns about this phasing plan during the
development of the FEIS. As we have stated, the
implementation phasing for the various
transportation improvements is a continued
concern, specifically the phasing plan shown for
the future commuter rail service extending from
Loveland to Fort Collins is not shown until Phase
3 (CDOT expected timeframe of 2075+).
Staff recommends that CDOT should revise the
FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as
shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan”
based on anticipated funding levels through
2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all
of the remaining elements of the Preferred
Alternative and be considered the “unfunded”
items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year
time horizon. These transportation
improvements – highway and transit – shown in
Phase 2 for 2055+ and Phase 3 for 2075+ need to
be implemented sooner rather than later to serve
the regional travel demand forecast for 2035.
Dividing them into two artificial phases with
these extreme timeframes does not solve the
issue that the future regional transportation needs
significantly outpace our current funding
sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be
a catalyst for convening regional discussions and
partnerships to work together toward
accomplishing these needs within the 2035
timeframe.
55
Correct reference is the “Mason Corridor”, not
“Mason Street Corridor” nor the “Mason Street
Transportation Corridor”. The correct location
for the “South Transit Center” is located along
the Mason Corridor near west Fairway Lane (not
at Harmony Road). The correct location for the
CSU station is along the Mason Corridor
between University Avenue and Pitkin Street.
Please correct various text references as well as
map “call out boxes” for accuracy and
consistency throughout the FEIS document and
all maps. Also, the opening day for Mason
Corridor “MAX” BRT service is not 2014 based
on the latest schedule information from the
City’s Engineering department. For more details
regarding the MAX BRT project, please contact:
Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer, at (970)
N
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 11 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
218-1409 or via e-mail:
hmigchelbrink@fcgov.com.
56
Page 2-64, will the new Park & Ride location
being built as part of the current SH292 & I-25
interchange project accommodate the future
parking demand (95 additional spaces) shown in
the FEIS?
N
57
The proposed Quiet Zone noise mitigation
strategies in the FEIS along the BNSF corridor
are consistent with the City’s plans to evaluate
potential Quiet Zone improvements along this
corridor to address noise impacts associated with
the existing freight rail operations as well as
future passenger rail service.
N
58
I-25 highway improvements north of Harmony
Road need to accommodate the future extension
of the regional Poudre River Trail that will
connect Fort Collins and Timnath and ultimately
connect through to Greeley.
N
59
Regional “Foxtrot” route is now referred to as
“Flex” and connects from Fort Collins through
Loveland to Longmont where is connects into
RTD’s transit system.
N
60
The list of Access Control Plans listed in the
FEIS (Chapter 2, section 2.1.3 should also
include the two access plans for US287 – North
College and South College Access Control Plans.
N
61
Chapter 2, regarding coordination with other
regional rail studies, are the future design plans
for I-25 interchanges shown in the FEIS taking
into consideration the long-term potential for
high speed rail? For example, are bridges over I-
25 being designed with a “clear span” to allow
for future opportunities for rail transportation in
the center of I-25?
N
62
Page 2-15 seems to be missing a graphic diagram
of the future plans for improving the I-25 &
Prospect interchange – this interchange location
is mentioned in the text, but not included in the
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 12 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
63
Page 2-20, the description of the Package A
Commuter Rail service seems to be inaccurate in
terms of where the northern end of service would
begin. It should read: “Downtown Fort Collins
at Mason and Maple streets” (not at University
Avenue).
N
64
Pages 2-24 and 2-74, note that the City of Fort
Collins’ Master Street Plan shows grade
separated roadway crossings of the BNSF
railroad at Drake Road and Trilby Road. This
information is important for the Commuter Rail
route shown in the Preferred Alternative and will
help address safety, traffic operations, and noise
concerns.
N
65
Sections 2.2.2.11 and 2.2.4.9, City does not what
physical barriers to view sheds and wildlife
movement corridors in Fort Collins.
N
66
Page 3.1-4, include the City of Fort Collins in the
list of I-25 corridor municipal plans (not just on
the US287 list of communities). Also revise the
title of the City’s plan to be “Plan Fort Collins”
which includes both City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan – these plans were
updated in 2010-11.
N
67
Page 3.1-7, regarding zoning, note that the City
of Fort Collins has a designated “Transit
Oriented Development Overlay Zone” in our
Land Use Code that covers the entire length of
the Mason Corridor BRT system.
N
68
Page 3.1-11, regarding land use, correct the
statement regarding Fort Collins. The City’s
adopted comprehensive plan “City Plan” calls for
higher density, mixed use, infill and
redevelopment along the US287 and Mason
Corridor. This is the area covered by the TOD
Overlay Zone. Our city plans do not envision
this corridor as built out or remaining the same as
today – it is a focus area for targeted infill and
redevelopment supported by high-quality transit
service and multimodal transportation choices.
N
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 13 of 22
Transportation Planning Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
70
Once the FEIS is completed and the ROD
approved, will the North Front Range MPO
model network be revised to include the highway
and transit improvements show in the Preferred
Alternative (Phase I)? This information will also
help better define the potential benefits/impacts
to the local arterial streets from the planned
highway and transit improvements shown in the
FEIS.
N
71
Section 4.2.6, additional question regarding
transit projections, it seems odd that the
Commuter Rail ridership projections are shown
to be lower than the projections for the I-25
express bus when the Commuter Rail route and
stations are located in higher density population
centers such as Downtown Fort Collins. When
future model projections are run for the
implementation phases of the proposed regional
transit system improvements, CDOT, NFR MPO,
and local communities work together to update
these projections.
N
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 14 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
Part I: Natural Areas
72
General comment: The most troubling issue noted is the possibility of a chain link
fence installation along the commuter rail through Natural Areas in the southwest
portion of Fort Collins. The fence would be highly disruptive to wildlife movement.
11. The intent of the Preferred Alternative is to include fencing along the rail corridor to limit access and improve safety
and to adhere to current RTD fencing standards and requirements. However, it is also recognized that the type of fencing
may vary depending upon adjacent land uses, wildlife use, or specific safety concerns. The FEIS will list a range of
fencing options to consider during the design process. This includes wildlife friendly fencing and could potentially include
wildlife underpasses. The actual fencing selected during the design process will be based on consideration of need and
function.
A
73
General comment: Maps for the EIS are not current and many City of Fort Collins’
Natural Areas and Parks are not shown.
12. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft.
Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing all parks and natural areas as well
as many other land use and transportation information. We believe we now have all City of Ft. Collins natural areas and
parks correctly identified and this information has been used in the FEIS.
A
74
3.1: Land use. These figures only show land uses as of 2000 and should be updated.
Figure 3.1.2 doesn’t show any open space/parks in Fort Collins. Figures 3.1-3
through 3.1-6 do not show all of the Fort Collins area open space/parks. For
example, Fossil Creek Regional Open Space is shown as an employment area, even
in the 2030 projection.
13. All maps have been updated with new information that has been collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft.
Collins has been directly contacted and they have provided updated GIS files showing the most recent land use data for
the city. The mistakes in the referenced maps have been recognized and corrected in the FEIS. Additionally this updated
information has been used in the Final EIS.
The map line weights in this section are so thick
the underlying land use is difficult to determine.
More detailed map sections reflecting individual
communities would be helpful.
Longview Open Space is shown as agriculture.
It should be shown as open space and was
designated open space at the time of mapping.
C
75
3.10.5: Vegetation. Statement regarding “develop an acceptable revegetation plan”
should note that the plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its
jurisdictional areas, not just acceptable to Larimer County.
14. The text has been changed to state that the revegetation plan must be acceptable to the City of Fort Collins within its
jurisdictional areas.
A
76
3.10-5. Vegetation. Removal of large cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre and
Big Thompson rivers will seriously impair the quality and functionality of the
riparian habitat. Bald eagles and other raptors frequently use these areas to perch and
hunt from. Similarly the continuous “thread” of riparian habitat is critical to wildlife
movement up and down the river corridors. Also, it is not possible to mitigate the
loss of a large-diameter native cottonwood tree.
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 15 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
collisions/etc.
The 3,000 acre native prairie habitat between
Fort Collins and Loveland should be designated
a sensitive habitat and consider/mitigate impacts
as such. Please include this in your mitigation
plan for the project.
FEIS fails to recognize Fossil Creek Reservoir
as an Audubon Society designated Important
Bird Area. The reservoir has extremely high
value for migratory waterfowl and other
waterbirds other than the Bald Eagle.
79
Figure 3-18-1. Parks and Recreation. There are quite a few missing natural areas
and open spaces on the map, including Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space,
Coyote Ridge Natural Area, Long View Farm Open Space.
18. These natural areas and open space properties were identified for the FEIS process. Please see updated Figure 3.18-
1. None of these open space and natural areas were identified as being impacted by the alternatives under consideration.
A
80
Table 3-18-2. Parks and Recreation. This figure is not up to date. There is
misinformation about Fossil Creek Reservoir Natural Area (confused with the
Regional Open Space; location is east of Timberline, not Timber Lake; etc.).
19. The figure and table have been updated to include the missing open space and natural area properties. Fossil Creek
Reservoir properties have been correctly identified including their location. This property is not impacted by the
alternatives under consideration.
A
81
3-18-3. Parks and Recreation. There will be direct impacts to Long View Farm
Open Space, and Colina Mariposa, Hazaleus, and Red-tailed Grove natural areas, as
well as indirect impacts (due to proximity) to other natural areas. The EIS states that
no parks or recreational resources will be impacted by the commuter rail alternative;
however that cannot possibly be true because it goes through and next to a number of
natural areas.
20. A Preferred Alternative that includes commuter rail has been identified and, along with Package A and B, has been
analyzed in the FEIS. Impacts to these natural areas have been fully assessed in that document. The referenced natural
areas (as well as a complete update to all land use information) have been identified and the design team is recognizing
the potential for impacts to these resources and will make every effort to avoid or minimize impacts under all 3 build
alternatives. The Preferred Alternative identifies single-tracking in this area that will remain within the existing right of
way of the rail corridor which will generally negate any direct impacts to the natural areas. Fencing will be included in
all areas where pedestrian safety is a concern. Indirect impacts such as noise, and visual impacts will be fully evaluated
and the Ft. Collins Natural Resources Staff comments will be taken into account.
A
82
3.6. Noise. Noise studies should be conducted at Arapaho Bend Natural Area in Fort
Collins. Any expanded use as part of the alternatives analysis needs to consider this
site. This open space managed by the City of Fort Collins fall into “Land Use
Category A”. City staff has noticed that noise levels likely exceed the maximum dB
levels outlined by CDOT. This area on the northwest corner of I25 and Harmony
Road in Fort Collins should be evaluated.
21. A TNM model receiver at Arapaho Bend was included in the FEIS analysis, even though developed facilities are not
present at the site. Also, local traffic noise conditions were represented by Receiver B012 at the nearby Strauss Cabin.
Please note that the project team feels Arapaho Bend is a Category B site rather than Category A (e.g., amphitheater).
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 16 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
contaminants) within the Cache La Poudre watershed above the current situation or
under the no-action alternative.
anticipated, for example, to remove 50 percent to 70 percent of total suspended solids, which accounts for the predicted
increase in loading.
85
3.8-12 (line 39). Wetlands. The EIS identifies the “former rest area site north of the
Cache La Poudre River” as a potential mitigation site. In fact that land was
transferred to the City of Fort Collins and is not available as a mitigation site.
24. Comment noted. The relevant statement has been revised and will not include discussion of this site as a potential
mitigation site to offset impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US.
A
86
3.9-12. Floodplains. Impacts to natural vegetation and wetlands along Spring Creek
and Fossil Creek need to be avoided or mitigated. Wetlands in these areas are highly
valued by wildlife including sensitive aquatic species. More detailed analysis is
necessary.
25. Any actions that result in a permanent dredging or filling of wetlands are required to be permitted by the US Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). As part of this permitting process, mitigation will be required. The first step in this process
is avoidance or minimization of wetland impacts. At Spring Creek, avoidance measures have been implemented so no
wetland impacts occur. At Fossil Creek, Package A has 0.05 acre of wetland impacts. The Preferred Alternative has 0.01
acre of wetland impact. This small amount of wetland impact has been included in the mitigation package being reviewed
by the Corps of Engineers for the Section 404 permit.
Wetlands impacted in the Fort Collins regional
area should be mitigated within (the same) Fort
Collins regional area.
Local mitigation requirements per City of Fort
Collins Land Use Code should be considered
for locally (Fort Collins) impacted wetlands.
We support the mitigation of both federally
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands
throughout the project area.
C
87
3.9-20 (line 6). Floodplains. The proponents of this project need to identify where
wetland mitigation would take place. CDOT or private lands would need to be
identified for the mitigation.
26. CDOT is currently discussing possible wetland mitigation sites with Fort Collins staff and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The details are in the Section 404 Permit application, which has been provided to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
A
88
3.9 (General Comment) Floodplains. The mitigation measures for each creek, river,
or other drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it impossible to evaluate for
direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same four mitigation
measures are identified for separate drainages. Revised, site specific mitigation plans
for each drainage should be conducted for the public and appropriate stakeholders to
comment on.
27.Mitigation measures that will be employed consistent with each alternative include: The 100-year FEMA design
flows will be used for freeboard determinations, scour design, and to ensure that flow velocities are acceptable. The 500-
year design flows will be used to further assess the scour design and set the depths of piles or caissons. The design will
consider the maximum allowable backwater as allowed by FEMA. Degradation, aggregation, and scour are to be
determined. Adequate counter measures will be selected using criteria established by the National Cooperative Highway
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 17 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
alternatives. mode choices. Commuter rail and transit
stations can serve as a stimulus to TOD.
Changed conditions
92
The recent volatility in gasoline prices suggest that the basis of long-range land use
and transportation planning may now be in question. For example, what if the land
use projections of I-25 corridor communities prove incorrect under a scenario of
$3.00/gallon gasoline, or $4.00, or $6.00? What if the trip-production rates used in
transportation forecasting are incorrect for the same reason? The EIS should address
the risk of making a poor choice from among the alternative due to the uncertainty of
future gasoline prices.
31. The EIS forecasts are conservative as no change in the relative cost of gasoline is assumed, because predicting the
price of fuel would be impracticable. The forecasts are based on the adopted future population and employment forecasts
of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. If the price of gas dramatically changes, it could indeed influence land use development
activity as well as travel behavior patterns. The FEIS acknowledges that the future price of gas is an unknown and
therefore introduces an uncertainty into the forecasts, as described in section 4.2.6.6.
Future transportation planning efforts such as
this one must begin to develop methods to
define and assess a plausible range of key future
condition such as fuel price because the risk of
not doing so, and making poor investments with
public money, is high. If fuel prices increase,
transit use will dramatically increase and
roadway investments made in the near future
may become stranded assets. Scenario-based
planning is used now in climate adaptation
planning that also involve significant
unknowns.
Fortunately, transit capacity can be relatively
easily expanded, and the FEIS notes that the
Preferred Alternative can accommodate up to a
90% increase in transit mode share.
C
Greenhouse gases
93
Several communities in the I25 corridor have adopted policies and/or plans to address
their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction of transportation
carbon emissions, which is directly proportional to vehicle miles traveled, is critical
to the success of these community efforts and the EIS should address the contribution
of the I25 decision toward their success or failure.
32. The DEIS and the FEIS both address the effect of the project alternatives on carbon dioxide, which is used as the
surrogate for greenhouse gas emissions. Package A produces 0.8 percent more carbon dioxide than the No Action
Alternative, Package B produces 0.4 percent more, and the Preferred Alternative produces 0.9 percent more. The City of
Fort Collins has developed a Climate Action Plan to help reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. The intent is to
reduce GHG emissions by the end of 2012 to a level not to exceed 2,466,000 tons of CO2. This will be achieved by the City
implementing measures to reduce VMT, which in turn would reduce GHG emissions. It is estimated that 5 to 10 percent of
automobile trips can be moved to non-motorized transport which would reduce the total VMT by 1 percent by 2012. There
are several transit projects proposed within the Denver Metro area. The Mason Corridor transit system will serve as the
backbone for the enhanced transit system in Fort Collins. Over time (after 2035), it would be expected that the rail
components of Package A and the Preferred Alternative would provide more options for lower energy consumption
because more trains could easily be added as demand increases.
The FEIS briefly discuses carbon dioxide
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 18 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
function, inflammation of the airways, and increased respiratory symptoms, such as cough and pain when taking a deep
breath. Particle pollution (particulate matter) is a mixture of suspended microscopic solids and liquid droplets made up of
various components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, dust particles, and pollen or mold spores. The size of a
particle is directly linked to its potential for causing health problems. Small particles, that is, those less than 10
micrometers (PM10) in diameter, pose the greatest problems because of their ability to penetrate deeply into the lungs and
bloodstream. Exposure to such particles can affect both the lungs and heart. Particles larger than 10 micrometers (PM10)
act as an irritant to the eyes and throat. Fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers is called
PM2.5. Sources of fine particles include all types of combustion, including motor vehicles, particularly diesel exhaust,
power plants, residential wood burning, forest fires, agricultural burning, and some industrial processes. Because these
smaller particles penetrate deeper into the respiratory system, they have a strong association with circulatory (heart
disease and strokes) disease and mortality.
94A
Air Pollution Emissions Total air pollution emissions, including criteria
pollutants and mobile source air toxics, are
slightly higher for any of the 2035 Build
alternatives than for the 2035 No Action
alternative. For example, Table 3.5-5 shows
that the 2035 Phase I total emissions for Fort
Collins are 2.2% higher than the 2035 No
Action Alternative. This does not comply with
Fort Collins’ over-arching policy to continually
improve air quality.
However, all alternatives including the
Preferred Alternative show lower CO hotspot
concentrations at Harmony and I-25 than the No
Action Alternative (Table 3.5-10). The
Preferred Alternative also provides reduced
arterial VMT, and reduced crashed/VMT.
In order to help mitigate the increased
emissions, the best available transportation
technology should be implemented in all cases.
as well as comprehensive transportation demand
management strategies.”
N
PM2.5
95
The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no
non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate
matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter (page 3.5-7) acknowledges that
PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many
areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed.
34. A project level PM2.5 analysis was not conducted since the Denver Metro area and the North Front Range are in
attainment for PM 2.5. However, precursors of PM2.5 include NOx and VOC. Emissions for this were projected for this
project. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the regionwide total mobile source emission estimates for existing, No Action and the
three build packages. For NOx, emissions estimates show very substantial reductions of approximately 164,000 tons per
day for all build alternatives, compared to existing levels. For VOC, the anticipated reduction is 58 tons per day. These
reductions illustrate the likely conclusion that vehicle emissions of PM 2.5 impacts are not anticipated in the future, with
or without the project improvements.
The address for the PM2.5 monitor station in
Fort Collins in Table 3.5-2 should be changed to
708 South Mason Street. C
More Specific Comments:
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 19 of 22
Natural Resources Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
8-hour ozone standard. This non-attainment designation should be discussed clearly
in this section, as well as the updated, more stringent 8-hour ozone standard that was
promulgated in March 2008.
The EIS states, on lines 13 and 14, that: “Other criteria pollutants are no longer
pollutants of concern in the Front Range area.” In fact, particulate matter levels even
below the federal health standards impact the health of individuals with respiratory
sensitivity. The City of Fort Collins has a policy to “continually improve air quality
as the city grows”.
Table 3.5-2 should be updated to reflect the second ozone monitoring site that was
established in west Fort Collins in 2006 and should be updated to reflect data
reported through 2007, not 2005.
Discussion of criteria pollutants should acknowledge that the Fort Collins West
monitoring site had the highest 8-hour ozone reading of the entire Front Range in
2007 and has recorded several 8-hour values that exceed the standard.
Greenhouse gas emissions should be discussed in the Affected Environment section,
not only briefly addressed in the Cumulative Impacts section. Within the DIES
study area, the communities of Fort Collins, Boulder and Denver has active
commitments and plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The State of Colorado
also has a Climate Action Plan. Regional transportation planning and projects are
one of the major avenues for reducing greenhouse gas emission from the
transportation sector. In April 2007, the U..S. Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide fit within the definition of "air pollutant" under the
Clean Air Act ("Act") and the EPA is now in the process of determining whether, in
its judgment, greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution "which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." It is conceivable that
greenhouse gas emissions will need to be addressed more rigorously in future NEPA
processes.
the 8-hour standard in much of the regional study area. Concentrations at monitoring stations throughout the regional
study area returned to levels below the 8-hour standard concentrations after the 2003 peak. However, concentrations
remained above the 8-hour standard after the 2005 peak. In 2006, Fort Collins added a new monitoring station to monitor
ozone concentrations. This monitoring station had the highest concentrations of ozone from 2006 to 2008 within the North
Front Range area. Attainment designation for the ozone standard is based on a three year average. Therefore, since
monitoring stations exceeded the 8-hour ozone standard for three consecutive years (2005 to 2007), the EPA designated
the Denver metro area and the north Front Range as a non-attainment area for the 8-hour ozone (O3) in November 2007.
The 1-hour ozone standard was revoked after this designation. In March 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for the 8-
hour ozone standard from 0.080 ppm to 0.075 ppm.” A discussion of GHG is in the Energy section, Section 3.21.
3.5.3.4 - PM analysis
97
The Air Quality analysis does not address PM2.5, presumably because there are no
non-attainment areas with the project study area. However, discussion of particulate
matter levels in the Affected Environment chapter (page 3.5-7) acknowledges that
PM2.5 24-hour maximum concentrations show a steady trend of increasing in many
areas. In light of this, PM2.5 impacts of alternatives should be addressed.
36. See response to the “PM2.5” Staff Comment #34.
C
Parks & Recreation Staff Comments (December 2008) CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 20 of 22
98
Comments on the DEIS from the view point of affected City of Fort Collins parks and
trails:
No-Action Alternative: No impact on Fort Collins parks and trails.
Section 3.18 Parks and Recreation, Review:
Archery Range, Creekside Park, Lee Martinez Park, Old Fort Collins Heritage Park
and Washington Park listed as being in the area of the project. Only affected park is
the Archery Range.
Package A: Archery Range impact of 0.09 acre. Construction would be coordinated
to minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to limit erosion, public safety and City
vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation
measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative
are developed.
Package B: Archery Range impact of 0.14 acre. Construction would be coordinated to
minimize impacts with the use of BMPs to control erosion, public safety and City
vegetation requirements used to repair disturbed areas. Coordination and mitigation
measures would be refined in more detail as the specifics of the proposed alternative
are developed.
37. Your review of the impacts is appreciated. The Preferred Alternative and Package A and B have been evaluated with
respect to parks and recreation resources, and is presented in the FEIS.
I-25 improvements need to be designed to
accommodate the Poudre River Trail extension.
Commuter Rail improvements along BNSF
need to be designed to accommodate the Fossil
Creek Trail.
N
Advance Planning -
Historic Preservation Office Staff Comments (December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011) Status
99
The City of Fort Collins Historic Preservation Office has reviewed those sections of
the North I-25 Draft EIS document pertaining to historic properties within the Fort
Collins Growth Management Area. Staff concurs with the findings that there will be
no adverse affects on any historically designated or eligible properties arising from the
implementation of the North I-25 project.
38. No Response Needed.
A
Regulatory and Government Affairs Division Staff Comments
(December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis Status
Section 3.7 Water Resources
100
3.7.1 Water Resources Regulations
General Comment: While the CDOT MS4 requirements described are generally only
applicable in MS4 areas, please note that all local MS4 construction and development
requirements must also be met within the local MS4 jurisdictional boundaries.
39. While there currently exists a statement that the project must also comply with local MS4 requirements (Page 3.7-2,
lines 19-20), an additional statement regarding construction and development/new development compliance has been
added.
A
101
Table 3.7-5
Both packages A and B are projected to increase stormwater contaminant loading by
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 21 of 22
Regulatory and Government Affairs Division Staff Comments
(December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis Status
With packages A & B, a much larger percentage runoff from the roads and other
impervious surfaces will be treated via water quality ponds or other BMPs than the
current situation or the no-action alternative. This area is figured based on current and
projected future MS4 areas and the area available for BMPs within the right-of-way.
The pollutant removal rates for structural BMPs are given as follows:
TSS - 50-70%
Total P - 10-20%
Zn - 30-60%
Cu - 1.4-30%
Chloride - not given
While this may appear that the increased pollutant loadings will not be adequately
treated for all parameters, increased impervious area will be treated with packages
A&B.
City of Fort Collins Water & Wastewater Utilities Department
Staff Comments (December 2008)
CDOT Response / Final EIS Staff Analysis (2011)
Water Quality and Floodplains
Technical Report
Status
102
No comments submitted N/A 1) Pg 65, 5th bullet from top. Add to
sentence….“Denver, Adams, Weld and
Larimer Counties, along with most cities and
towns within the project area, are
responsible for regulating development in
FEMA designated floodplains and adhere to
FEMA policy and local Floodplain
regulations”.
N
103
2) Pg 68-69, Cache La Poudre River section,
the bottom paragraphs of page 68 are
incorrectly stated. The City of Fort Collins
highly supports removing the split flow if
regulatory issues can be resolved through
mitigation with CDOT and staff working
together during design phase. State, Federal
and local regulations will all be adhered to
during the design phase.
N
104
3) Pg 71, table 6-1. Would be helpful to add
column indicating what floodplain and what
jurisdiction each tributary is in. For
example, Boxelder Creek side drainage –
FEMA Regulatory Floodplain, City of Fort
Collins jurisdiction.
N
105
4) Section 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, For each structure
EXHIBIT A
North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement
City of Fort Collins Comments / Comment Response Tracking Sheet
A= Comment Addressed
C= Continued Concern
N= New Comment
Page 22 of 22
in.
106
5) Pg 83, unclear what GPL and GP represent.
Would suggest defining these more clearly.
N
107
6) Pg 85 first bullet, Unsure where this is.
Would be helpful to more clearly show
location on map of each improvement
detailed in bulleted text for the No Action
alternative, Package A and Package B.
N
108
7) Pg 87, Reference to Spring Creek and BNSF
mid page. There are two projects currently
in process at this location, Choice Center
and the Mason BRT project. Both projects
have approved Conditional Letter of Map
Revisions (CLOMRs). Please contact Brian
Varrella, bvarrella@fcgov.com , 970-416-
2217 for more information on this location
and correct statements for this section.
N
109
8) It is very probable a FEMA Conditional
Letter of Map Amendment (CLOMR) and
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMR) will be
required for work performed in a FEMA
regulatory floodway. Close coordination
with the administering local Floodplain
Administer will be required for all work in
the floodplains, flood fringes and floodways
to ensure all projects within the FEMA
regulatory floodplains meet federal and local
floodplain requirements.
N
110
9) PG 93 last paragraph, add the following or
similar statement: All Federal and Local
floodplain regulations will be followed by
CDOT for each project. Floodplain
modeling will be required on many
improvements per Federal and Local
requirements. CDOT will coordinate with
local jurisdiction floodplain administration
in the initial stages of each project.
N
1
North I‐25
July 10, 2012
Introduction:
Presenter: James Flohr
Resident Engineer
Colorado Department of Transportation
Region 4, Loveland Residency
ATTACHMENT 3
2
North I‐25
• Project Purpose: to meet long‐term
travel needs between the Denver Metro Area
and the rapidly growing population centers
along the I‐25 corridor north to Fort Collins‐
Wellington area. To meet the long‐term
travel needs, the project must improve
safety, mobility and accessibility, and provide
modal alternatives and interrelationships.
North I‐25
• Project Need:
– Aging and functionally obsolete
infrastructure
– Increased frequency and severity of
crashes
– Increasing traffic congestion leading to
mobility and accessibility problems
– Lack of modal alternatives
3
Record of Decision
• Developed for Phase 1
improvements
• Includes final resolution of all
regulatory requirements
– Historic property mitigation
– Endangered species signoff
– Agreement from the Corps
– Section 4(f) approvals
– CDOT 1601 and FHWA Interstate
Access Request approvals
• Response to public and agency
comments
• ROD Signed January 2012
Preferred Alternative
4
North I‐25
• Preferred Alternative Includes:
– General Purpose Lanes –One new general purpose lane in
each direction of I‐25 between SH 66 and SH 14
– Tolled Express Lanes (TEL) –One buffer‐separated TEL in each
direction of I‐25 from the existing HOV/Express Toll Lnaes at
approximately 84th
Avenue in Denver to SH 14
– Interchange Upgrades – Upgrades 13 interchanges along I‐25
– Express Bus –Express bus with 13 stations along I‐25, US 34
and Harmony Rd. with service from Fort Collins and Greeley to
downtown Denver and DIA
– Commuter Rail – Commuter rail service with nine stations
connecting Fort Collins to Longmont using the BNSF Railroad
right‐of‐way, generally paralleling SH 119 then County Road 7
and tying into FasTracks North Metro line in Thornton,
providing service to downtown Denver. Passengers may also
connect to the FasTracks Northwest line in Longmont, which
will travel to Boulder.
– Commuter Bus – Commuter bus service with Eight stations and
stops along the US 85 corridor connecting Greeley to
downtown Denver.
– Congestion Management – Includes accommodation for
ridesharing, carpools and vanpools along with additional
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In addition, signal timing ,
ramp metering on I‐25, and signage will also be improved.
North I‐25
Phase 1
5
North I‐25
• Overall Capital Costs of Preferred
alternative $2.1B (2009 $’s)
• Phase 1
– Fiscally Constrained 2035 RTP
– Estimated at $670M (2009 $’s)
– $26M Commuter Rail ROW (State
Funds, no forseeable construction)
– Highway Projects
• SH 56 to SH 66
• Centerra Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI)
• Crossroads to SH 14
North I‐25
Financial Analysis – Phase 1
Capital Cost (2009 dollars)
Preferred Alternative
Highway $548.4
Transit $121.5
Total $669.9
6
North I‐25
• To be successful we must be in a
position to spend money if/when
it becomes available
– Due to uncertainty of funding
– Due to competition among
transportation projects statewide
– Must have projects poised to take
advantage of available funding
• Examples: ARRA, Tiger, Federal Re‐
Authorization, Changing Revenues
North I‐25
• Where we are today:
– Executing consultant design
contracts for each of these three
segments of Phase 1
• Muller Engineering selected for I‐25
from SH 56 to SH 66 Segement
• TBD for I‐25 at US 34/Centerra/Rocky
Mtn.
• Atkins selected for I‐25 from
Crossroads to SH 14 Segment
7
North I‐25
• Status of Design Projects
– We are at the starting blocks
– Need to engage community and effected
citizens, local agencies, planning partners
and stakeholders throughout the design
and construction process
– Coordinate the improvements throughout
the corridor (i.e. public communication,
design standards etc..)
– Meet the committed mitigation of the
FEIS (i.e. noise, air quality, T&E, wetlands,
historic etc..)
North I‐25
Phase 2
8
North I‐25
Phase 3
North I‐25
Infrastructure
• 94 new structures with the
Preferred Alternative
• Project will replace pavement
that has exceeded its useful life
9
Next Steps
• Beginning Design Phase
– CDOT to engage and work with City
Staff and public
– Future small group meetings and
public meetings as needed
– Design project
– Position project to take advantage
of funding opportunities for
construction
Comments & Discussion
• Questions ?
• Thank you!
DATE: July 10, 2012
STAFF: Diane Jones
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For many years, the City has waived fees for Housing Authority projects under a state law that
exempts housing authorities from fees and taxes, and a local ordinance that defines the particular
fees that are to be waived. For the most part, the projects for which fees were waived by the City
have been relatively small.
In 2011, the Housing Authority partnered with CARE Housing, a non-profit agency, on an
affordable housing project in the Provincetown subdivision. While the interest of the Housing
Authority in the project was small (technically a .001% partner but guaranteed up to $1.4 million
of unanticipated costs), a waiver of City fees for the CARE Housing Provincetown Project was
requested and granted by the City Council. The fee waiver totaled $557,378.
Council asked staff to examine the fee waiver policy for the Housing Authority and provide some
options for future projects, especially those in which the Housing Authority has only a minor
interest.
This work session is to review the options staff has considered and to discuss with City Council a
recommended approach.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Are there other options that Council thinks should be considered?
2. Does Council concur with the recommended direction and next steps?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The mission of the Fort Collins Housing Authority is to provide and promote safe and affordable
housing, economic opportunity and a living environment free from discrimination.
The Housing Authority administers its own Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)
programs, manages the Public Housing units owned by the Wellington Housing Authority, and
operates the Larimer County Housing Authority’s HCV program. The Housing Authority also
manages the non-subsidized affordable housing properties owned by Villages, Ltd. and the low-
income senior apartments located in the historic Northern Hotel.
July 10, 2012 Page 2
In 2011, the Housing Authority partnered with CARE Housing, a non-profit agency, on an
affordable housing Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project in the Provincetowne
subdivision. The project is an 85-unit, $14.9 million townhome rental housing project intended to
serve families earning 30%-50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The project had private
investors who had been awarded federal housing tax credits. Because the IRS rules for the LIHTC
program required the private investor to be a 99% owner, the Housing Authority had a very small
ownership interest in the project - .001% interest - but also guaranteed up to $1.4 million of
unanticipated costs.
The Council approved the waiver of $557,378 in City fees for CARE Housing/Provincetowne
Project. In waiving the fees, the City Council asked for options for future projects, especially those
in which the Housing Authority has only a minor interest.
Issue
As noted above, under the Colorado statutes and the City of Fort Collins ordinances and resolutions
dating back to 1988 (Resolution 1988-081, Ordinance No. 051, 1996, Resolution 1996-073,
Ordinance No. 065, 1999), Housing Authority projects have historically been exempted from taxes
and fees. While the state law does not specify particular exemptions, the City ordinance does specify
the particular fees from which Housing Authority projects are exempt. The most recent local
legislative action (Ordinance No. 065, 1999) exempts housing authority projects from:
• Appeal fees
• Building Permit fees
• Development Review fees
• Parkland fees
• Plan check fees
• Street Oversizing fees
• Vested property right fees
• Zoning variance fees
• Community Parkland Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Library Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee
• General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Fee in Lieu of School Site Dedication
For the most part, the projects for which these fees have been waived have been relatively small
projects with minimal fees. This is because for the last decade and due to market conditions, the
Housing Authority has focused on substantial renovation and preservation of affordable housing
rather than new construction.
The City and the Housing Authority disagree as to whether the exemption from taxes and fees (as
referred to in the State statutes) applies only to projects that are wholly owned by the Housing
Authority or also applies to projects in which the Housing Authority holds a minority interest. The
reason that this difference of opinion has become significant is that, when fees are waived by the
City, other sources of funds must generally be identified to pay those fees. Otherwise, other fee
payers would be required to make up the difference needed to cover the costs of the infrastructure
July 10, 2012 Page 3
or services funded by the fees and would wind up paying a disproportionate share of those costs.
For the CARE Housing/Provincetown Project, the fees were covered out of the General Fund.
Council requested additional discussion of this issue before other affordable housing projects in
which the Housing Authority has an ownership interest are presented to Council for possible fee
waivers.
A staff team that included Karen Cumbo-Director of Planning, Development and Transportation,
Joe Frank- Director of Social Sustainability , Mike Beckstead-Chief Financial Officer, Steve Roy-
City Attorney, Paul Eckman-Deputy City Attorney, Carrie Daggett-Deputy City Attorney, and Diane
Jones-Deputy City Manager, was formed to address the issue.
Options Identified and Considered
Staff has had extensive discussions with the Fort Collins Housing Authority about how best to deal
with this issue. Several approaches were initially identified:
A. Use Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Funds to Cover the
Fees.
At one point in the discussions, the Housing Authority suggested that the fee waivers focus on
Permanent Supportive Housing projects which target the chronically homeless, thereby
concentrating on the most vulnerable people in the community.1 It is likely that there would be an
application for this type of housing project and subsequent fee waiver no more than once every two
years.
These funds are somewhat restricted, but CDBG funds can be used to cover some site specific
development fees and HOME can cover some impact fees. While both sources can be used to cover
some select fees, neither can be used to cover waived fees. Financing can also be structured so
federal grants and tax credits cover a greater share of project development and construction and
thereby enabling other elements of project financing to cover the fees.
B. Affordable Housing/Human Services Tax or Fee.
Some communities assess a human services/affordable housing sales tax (e.g., a .45 % in Aspen).
The fact that Fort Collins’ voters approved a .85-cent sales tax increase in November 2010 and given
that the economic recovery remains slow and challenging, a tax request and approval is relatively
remote. An affordable housing fee on other new development is also likely to be met with
resistance.
1Homeward 2020 is a local initiative to make homelessness in Fort Collins rare, short-lived and non-reoccurring
within a 10-year period. One of the strategies to end homelessness in Fort Collins is to provide permanent
supportive housing for those who need it. Supportive housing combines housing with services that help people
who face the most complex challenges to live with stability, autonomy and dignity. Toward this end, the Fort
Collins Housing Authority is working to provide a Permanent Supportive Housing facility in our community.
July 10, 2012 Page 4
C. Defer Fees to the End of the First Financing Period.
Another option staff considered was the idea of deferring development and impact fees for a period
of time. For affordable housing projects that are financed by another party (other than the Housing
Authority) and where the ownership is transferred after a period of time (for example, the tax credit
period of 15 years), the fees would then be paid by the new owner. LIHTC projects are owned by
a partnership in which the tax credit investors typically hold 99% ownership in order to receive the
benefit of the credits and the non-profit partner owns 1% since it does not have a tax liability and
would not benefit from the tax credits. This ownership structure, as well as the details of ownership
at the end of the tax credit period, are negotiated and documented in the formation of the partnership
documents.
Some of the questions and concerns with this option include: (a) if the project is not transferred
from a partnership to the Housing Authority, who would pay the fees, e.g., would the City (General
Fund) be required to pay them; (b) since impact fees help fund the needed public facilities that
support the project (such as street oversizing, parks, water and wastewater) and if such fees are
delayed for an extended period of time, would there be adequate resources to “front” the cost of
providing expanded public facilities to accommodate the development?
D. Make the Fee Waivers Optional, According to Established Criteria
An option suggested by the Housing Authority is to modify Ordinance No. 065, 1999 which exempts
the Housing Authority from paying a list development review and impact fees. The suggestion is
to change the language of the ordinance from “the City shall exempt the Housing Authority from
payment of any of the following fees” to “the City may exempt the Housing Authority from payment
of any of the following fees.”
In order to evaluate which projects would be seriously considered for such exemption, staff worked
with the Housing Authority and is suggesting that each Housing Authority project would be
reviewed with two general criteria as guidelines for exempting projects from prescribed
development review and development impact fees. In other words, applications for fee waivers
would be limited to:
1. projects that are constructed for the homeless or disabled (in accordance with the HUD
definition); and/or
2. projects that are constructed for occupants whose income falls within 0% to 30% AMI
(Adjusted Median Income)
Board and Commission Outreach
The issue and the options were presented to the Affordable Housing Board (June 7, 2012) and the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission (June 14, 2012). The minutes from
the Affordable Housing Board and an excerpt from the CDBG Commission are attached.
The Affordable Housing Board discussion focused on: asking if there were sources other than the
General Fund to cover fees that might be waived; supported pro-rating waivers for only that portion
July 10, 2012 Page 5
of the project that met the criteria (Option D); and questioning if the commitment of the City (for
waiving and covering fees) was sufficient.
The Board has provided a written response to Council (Attachment 6).
The CDBG Commission discussion focused on: suggesting fee waivers for the Housing Authority
only apply to projects in which the Authority has a greater percentage of participation; suggesting
that the City waive fees for all affordable housing projects; fee waivers for Housing Authority
projects discourages others from competing; Option D helps to “level the playing” field as the
Housing Authority would only seek and be provided fee waivers under the criteria cited; and
perhaps the suggested language of “may” is too open-ended. The Commission’s conclusion was a
preference for Option D and would like to see fee waivers extended to other non-profit developers
(of affordable housing).
Recommendation
City and Housing Authority staff disagree as to whether the Colorado Revised Statutes do, in fact,
exempt projects that are only partially owned by housing authorities from paying local development
and impact fees. Rather than press this issue, staff has worked to formulate a mutually acceptable
proposal to address the concerns of City Council. City staff and the Housing Authority staff are
recommending Option D above.
The specifics of the proposal are:
A. Housing Authority requests for the waiver of development and impact fees would be limited
to housing projects that are targeted for the most vulnerable population in the City. The
Housing Authority defines its most vulnerable target population as: (1) the homeless or
disabled (in accordance with the HUD definition, and (2) those that fall within 0% to 30%
AMI (Adjusted Median Income). If only a portion of a project qualified for a waiver, the
waiver would be pro-rated accordingly.
B. Each proposed waiver would be presented to the City Council for consideration and would
be discretionary with the Council. If, in Council’s judgment, a particular waiver would
create an undue financial hardship for the City, the Council would not be obligated to waive
the fees for that project.
C. To cover the waived fees, two strategies would be employed:
1. Priority would be given by the CDBG Commission and City Council to use CDBG
and HOME funds to pay the development and impact fees (to the extent permissible
under HUD guidelines).
2. If CDBG and/or HOME funds cannot be used to cover the fees, or the use of these
funds is not approved by City Council, then the City’s General Fund would be
utilized to cover such fees.
D. The development and impact fees that would be subject to the fee waivers would be the
following (these would not change from what is in the current City ordinance):
July 10, 2012 Page 6
• Appeal fees
• Building Permit fees
• Development Review fees
• Parkland fees
• Plan check fees
• Street Oversizing fees
• Vested property right fees
• Zoning variance fees
• Community Parkland Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Library Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Police Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Fire Protection Capital Expansion Fee
• General Government Capital Improvement Expansion Fee
• Fee in Lieu of School Site Dedication
Next Steps
If City Council concurs with this direction, staff will work on amending the current City ordinance
and prepare an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the Housing Authority. The
Intergovernmental Agreement would be presented to the Housing Authority Board. The ordinance
amendment along with the proposed IGA would then be presented to City Council at a regular
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 1988-081
2. Ordinance No. 051, 1996
3. Resolution 1996-073
4. Ordinance No. 065, 1999
5. Affordable Housing Board minutes, June 7, 2012
6. Affordable Housing Board memo
7. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission minutes, June 14, 2012
8. Powerpoint presentation
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOARD
DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
281 N. College Ave.
Fort Collins, Colorado
June 7, 2012
4 to 6 p.m.
Chair: Dan Byers
Staff Liaison: Ken Waido 970-221-6753
City Council Liaison: Lisa Poppaw
Board Members present: Ben Blonder, Dan Byers, Jeff Johnson, Troy Jones,
Wayne Thompson
Board Members absent: Karen Miller, Mike Sollenberger
Advance Planning Department Staff present: Ken Waido; Beth Rosen, Affordable
Housing Administrator
Council Members present: None
Other Staff present: Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager; Ingrid Decker, Assistant City
Attorney; Kate Jeracki, Note Taker
Guests: Marilyn Heller, League of Women Voters; Julie Brewen, Fort Collins Housing
Authority; Bill Renke, CARE Housing; Kristen Candella, Fort Collins Habitat for
Humanity; Ray Roth, citizen
[FEE WAIVER SEGMENT EXCERPT]
FORT COLLINS HOUSING AUTHORITY FEE WAIVERS UPDATE —
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager and Director, Policy, Planning and Transportation,
presented a working paper on fee waivers for the Fort Collins Housing Authority. The
Housing Authority’s minimal participation in the Provincetowne project as a partner with
the nonprofit CARE Housing resulted in the waiver of $557,000 in infrastructure-related
fees, and this amount had to be made up from the General Fund. While there are
questions about whether current statutes apply to projects not wholly owned by the
Housing Authority, City Council has asked for additional options for future projects,
especially those in which the Housing Authority has only a minor interest.
Jones presented four options:
A. Use Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds to cover the fees.
ATTACHMENT 5
2
The Housing Authority suggested that the fee waivers focus on permanent
supportive housing projects that target the chronically homeless. HUD prohibits the use
of CDBG funds for impact fees; HOME funds can be used to pay individual or fractional
impact fees on specific projects only, not all affordable housing.
B. Affordable Housing/Human Services tax or fee
Other communities assess such a tax, but the possibility of passage of a tax
increase at this time is relatively remote.
C. Defer fees to the end of the first financing period
The fees would not be assessed until the ownership is transferred, for example,
after the tax credit period of 15 years, and the new owner would pay them. However, if
the ownership is not transferred, would the fees still come out of the General Fund?
Would deferment provide enough money upfront to expand public facilities to
accommodate the development?
D. Make the fee waivers optional, according to established criteria
Under this option, the existing ordinance would be changed from “the City shall
exempt the Housing Authority from payment of any of the following fees” to “the City
may exempt the Housing Authority from payment of any of the following fees.” Each
Housing Authority project would be reviewed with two general criteria as guidelines for
exemption:
• Projects that are constructed for the homeless or disabled and/or
• Projects that are constructed for occupants whose income is less than 30 percent
of adjusted median income.
Staff is recommending Option D. Julie Brewen said FCHA also supports this option as
win-win to serve the most vulnerable members of the community. Jones asked for input
from the Affordable Housing Board to be presented at the City Council worksession on
July 10.
Troy Jones asked if there were any other possible sources of funding other than the
General Fund to cover the infrastructure costs paid for by the waived fees. Diane Jones
said no. Ken Waido said financing can be structured so federal grants and tax credits
cover other parts of a project. Beth Rosen also pointed out that fees management is the
biggest administrative burden of any project.
Ben Blonder supported restricting waivers to projects serving those with less than 30
percent AMI. Dan Byers questioned making the waivers completely discretionary for
City Council. He was concerned about projects with minimal ownership by FCHA, like
Provincetown. Blonder said under these new restrictions, Provincetowne might have had
a hard time getting the waivers that were granted. Jeff Johnson asked about leaving the
3
term “partnership” undefined; Brewen said the draft is silent on the issue of percentage of
FCHA participation. Blonder asked if the waivers could be pro-rated—for example, if 10
percent of a project’s units were for less than 30 percent AMI or homeless or disabled,
only 10 percent of the fees could be waived. Diane Jones confirmed that to be the case.
Troy Jones asked when in the lifecycle of the project would developers know which fees
will be waived? Diane Jones said projects that meet the criteria will be flagged and put
into the city’s budget process as soon as they are identified. A BFO offer could include a
minimum/maximum dollar amount for waivers, contingent upon approval by Council.
Dan Byers said the way the option is worded is a small commitment from the City. He
suggested taking out “discretionary.” He would like the Board to formulate a response to
Council in writing, and will initiate an email discussion with members before the July 10
worksession, since the Board’s next meeting has been rescheduled to July 12.
Housing Authority Fee Waiver
Affordable Housing Board Comments
June 7, 2012
The Affordable Housing Board (AHB) heard a presentation by Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager,
regarding the City’s review of Fee Waivers for the Fort Collins Housing Authority (FCHA) at its June7,
2012 regular meeting. Following are the AHB’s comments related to the City’s recommendation on
this issue:
1. The City’s ordinance allowing for certain Fee Waivers for projects owned by the FCHA has been
appropriate and has encouraged the establishment of affordable housing in Fort Collins.
2. Due to the size of the fee waiver ($577,000) requested for the Provincetowne project, which the
FCHA had a small ownership interest in, the City has subsequently conducted a review of the fee waiver
ordinance. This review has suggested several options for modifying and further clarifying the
application of the fee waivers for FCHA owned projects.
3. After considering these options with the FCHA, the City has made a recommendation to clarify when
the fee waivers would be granted based on the following terms:
a. The waiver, if granted, would be limited to projects targeting the homeless or disabled, and
those that fall within the 0 – 30% AMI range. If only a portion of the project qualified under
these terms, the waiver would be pro‐rated accordingly.
b. The waiver would be discretionary if, in Council’s judgment, a particular waiver would create
undue hardship for the City.
c. The waived fees would need to be covered by the City’s General Fund, since CDBG/HOME
funds cannot be used to cover waived fees. Some non‐waived fees could possibly be covered
by federal funds.
4. The AHB has read and discussed the City’s review and recommendation and has the following
comments:
a. Any interpretation or clarification of the State statutes and the City’s Ordinance should
further clarify that the waiver be applied uniformly to any project owned by the FCHA,
regardless of that percentage ownership.
ATTACHMENT 6
b. Limiting the fee waiver to projects targeting the homeless, disabled, or those that target the
0 – 30% AMI population is a very limited scope that would substantially reduce the fee waivers
the City would be asked to consider. This determination by the City could be interpreted by
some as a reduction in the City’s commitment to encourage affordable housing in our
community.
c. If the City were to adopt this new clarification of the Ordinance, with its reduced scope as
outlined in point 3 above, the AHB would strongly recommend that the fee waiver not be
considered discretionary. Making the fee waiver discretionary would seem to be contrary to
the purpose and intent of the City’s review of this Ordinance, which was to clarify when the
waiver would be granted. Making the waiver discretionary could also cause hardship and
undue expense for the FCHA when initiating projects since it may inhibit their ability to plan for
all anticipated costs of the project. Further, the new limited scope being recommended for the
waiver should substantially lessen any fee waiver requests such that they would not be
expected to generate an undue hardship on the City.
If the City continues to have a concern over the exposure that these waived fees could
present, and the dollar impact on the City’s General Fund, one suggestion our board had would
be to consider a hard dollar cap for waived fees that any one project would not exceed. With
a hard dollar cap, both the City and the FCHA could plan appropriately for upcoming projects.
Thank you for considering the review and comments of the AHB.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
281 N. COLLEGE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS
June 14, 2012, 6:30 P.M.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kay Rios, Chair Jamaal Curry
Anita Basham Margaret Long
Robert Browning Emily Sander
Catherine Costlow
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gordon Coombes Heidi Phelps
Kristin Stephens Sharon Thomas
VISITORS PRESENT:
Bill Reinke, Executive Director, CARE Housing
Kristin Candella, Incoming Executive Director,
Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity
Ray Roth, Citizen
[FEE WAIVERS SEGMENT EXCERPT]
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager and Director, Policy, Planning and Transportation,
presented a working paper on fee waivers related to the Fort Collins Housing
Authority. The Housing Authority’s minimal financial percentage participation in
the Provincetowne project, as CARE Housing’s non‐profit partner resulted in the
waiver of $557,000 in infrastructure‐related fees. That amount needed to be made
up from the City’s General Fund. While there are still questions about whether
current State statutes apply to projects not wholly owned by the Housing Authority,
City Council has asked for additional options for future projects, especially those in
which the Housing Authority has only a minor interest.
Ms. Jones presented four options:
A. Use Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds to cover the fees.
The Housing Authority suggested that the fee waivers focus on permanent
supportive housing projects that target the chronically homeless. The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) prohibits the use of CDBG
funds for impact fees. HOME funds can be used to pay individual or fractional
impact fees on specific projects only, but may not be used on some other
community‐wide development fees. Neither federal funding stream may be used to
“backfill” waived fees.
ATTACHMENT 7
CDBG Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 2012 Fee Waivers Segment Excerpt
2
B. Affordable housing/human services tax or fee
Other communities assess such a tax, but the possibility of passage of a tax
increase at this time is relatively remote.
C. Defer fees to the end of the first financing period
The fees would not be assessed until the ownership is transferred‐‐for
example, after the tax credit period of 15 years has passed, and the new owner
would pay them. However, if the ownership is not transferred, would the fees still
come out of the General Fund? Would deferment provide enough money upfront to
expand public facilities to accommodate the development?
D. Make the fee waivers optional, according to established criteria
Under this option, the existing ordinance would be changed from “the City
shall exempt the Housing Authority from payment of any of the following fees” to
“the City may exempt the Housing Authority from payment of any of the following
fees.” Each Housing Authority project would be reviewed with two general criteria
as guidelines for exemption: projects that are constructed for persons who are
homeless or have disabilities and/or projects that are constructed for occupants
whose income is less than 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).
City and Housing Authority staff are recommending Option D. Ms. Jones asked for
input from the CDBG Commission to present to Council’s July 10 work session.
Catherine Costlow suggested that waivers only apply to projects with a greater
percentage of Housing Authority participation. Otherwise, developers might
partner with the Authority just to get the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, when
applicable. Ms. Jones said that might be possible, but the question remains as to
how to manage the waivers.
Kay Rios pointed out that while State law says housing authorities are exempt from
fees and taxes, it is up to the City to enumerate which fees.
Bob Browning suggested the City should waive fees for all affordable housing
projects, not just the ones involving the Housing Authority. Ms. Jones said State law
singles out housing authorities. It’s a matter of City finances to collect fees.
Ms. Rios pointed out that fee waivers give Housing Authority projects a significant
leg up on other projects that come before the Commission in the City’s Competitive
Process for funding. While she understands that it is not financially feasible to
exempt all affordable housing projects, the advantage given to the Authority
discourages other projects from competing. Even if the waivers were optional, Ms.
Rios believes the Housing Authority would always get them, no matter what. She
asked where the list of fees to be waived, as specified in the existing ordinance, came
CDBG Commission Regular Meeting
June 14, 2012 Fee Waivers Segment Excerpt
3
from. Ms. Rios wondered whether the Council could pick and choose which fees to
waive. Ms. Jones was unsure, but noted that in the past, fee waivers have been all or
nothing. She confirmed that under Option D, waivers would only be granted to
projects within the parameters specified.
Margaret Long said she liked that restriction, because projects for persons who are
homeless, have a disability and/or are very low‐income, are the most difficult for
investors, since they have the least potential for profit. It makes sense to level the
playing field somewhat between the Housing Authority and other developers. Ms.
Long added that she doesn’t like deferring fees, because after 15 years of inflation,
what are you really getting?
Emily Sander said Option D was good because the actual percentage of Housing
Authority participation isn’t the issue. She wanted to know if the waivers would
always be granted to projects meeting the criteria.
Ms. Jones said the language was “may,” and Council could deny them if the City were
in dire financial straits.
Jamaal Curry was concerned that the language was too open‐ended. Mr. Browning
was concerned that eventually the definitions would expand back to where the
Housing Authority is exempt from everything again. Ms. Rios thought limiting the
exemptions was a good place to start. She was comfortable with waivers being
limited to specific types of projects, and not specific types of fees.
Ms. Jones pointed out that Council can waive fees, but that doesn’t preclude the
Housing Authority from asking for additional project support from the Competitive
Process (CDBG, HOME, or Affordable Housing Fund dollars) in the future.
The Commission agreed with her recap of the discussion: Option D is preferred, in
order to level the playing field between the Housing Authority and other developers
of affordable housing. The Commission would like to see fee waivers extended to
other nonprofit developers as well, if feasible.
1
1
Housing Authority Fee Waiver
Diane Jones
July 10, 2012
2
Housing Authority Fee Waiver
• Colorado State statute and City ordinance exempt
Housing Authority projects from fees and taxes
• In the past, Housing Authority projects were
relatively small and the exemptions modest
ATTACHMENT 8
2
3
Issue
• In 2011, Housing Authority partnered with CARE
Housing on the Provincetowne project
• Financing was from private investors with Low
Income Housing Tax Credits
• The private investors could only own a 99%
share—partnered with the Housing Authority.
• With Housing Authority’s minor interest (.001%)
an exemption from City fees was requested and
approved by City Council
4
Issue
• City Council approved the waiver in the amount of
$557,378
• When fees are waived, other sources must be
identified to pay the fees—frequently the General
Fund covers the fees
• Unclear whether the statutory intent is to waive
City fees for projects in which the Housing
Authority has a partial vs. a whole interest
• Council asked staff to review the issue and
explore other options
3
5
Options
Staff considered a variety of ideas and identified four
possible options:
•Option A: Use CDBG and Home Funds to Cover
the Waived Fees
•Option B: Special Affordable Housing or Human
Services Tax or Fee
6
Options
• Option C: Defer Fees to the End of the Financial
Period
• Option D: Limit Fee Waivers to Certain Types of
Projects
4
7
Outreach
Reviewed the issue and options with two City
boards:
•Affordable Housing Board
Asked if there are sources other than the
General Fund to cover the fee waivers
Supported pro-rating fees or waivers for only
that portion of a project that meets the criteria
8
Outreach
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Commission:
Waive City fees for Housing Authority projects
where the Authority holds a major interest
Support Option D helps to “level the playing
field” among competing affordable housing
projects
Extend Option D for all affordable housing
projects
5
9
Recommendation
• City staff and the Housing Authority support
Option D
• Key elements of Option D are:
Amend the City’s ordinance from “shall
exempt” to “may exempt” the Housing Authority
from City development and impact fees
City would consider exemptions for projects
that met two criteria:
projects for homeless or the disabled
projects for occupants with incomes that
range from 0% to 30% of the Adjusted
Median Income (AMI)
10
Next Steps
• If Council concurs with the direction presented,
next steps are:
Prepare amendment of the City ordinance and
present to Council at a regular meeting
Prepare an intergovernmental agreement
(IGA) between the City and the Housing
Authority based on the elements of Option D
and present to Council at a regular meeting
DATE: July 10, 2012
STAFF: John Stokes
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Natural Areas Department Update: Overview, Budget, Land Conservation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Natural Areas Department is celebrating its 20th birthday this year. There have been many
remarkable achievements including land conservation and stewardship, the provision of outstanding
recreation enhancements, and excellent outreach programs. The Department is in good financial
condition, but faces a significant long-term challenge due to the potential 2018 expiration of Larimer
County’s Help Preserve Open Space quarter-cent sales tax. The County resource provides about
one-third of the total revenues to the Department and is vital to its operations. This agenda item
summary provides an overview of the long-term budget and associated challenges. It also provides
a brief overview of the Department’s activities as well as a description of the Department’s approach
to land conservation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have any questions or concerns about the Natural Areas Department
operations?
2. Does Council have any questions or concerns about the long-term budget of the Natural
Areas Department?
3. Does Council have any questions or concerns with the land conservation approach of the
Natural Areas Department?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In 1974, City Council adopted an open space plan that was implemented by the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department. The Natural Areas Program, now the Natural Areas Department, was
established in 1992. Early acquisitions, including, for example, portions of Maxwell, Pineridge,
Reservoir Ridge and Red Fox Meadow, were enabled by tax initiatives in 1973 and 1984. In 1992,
1997, and 2002, voters approved a series of sales tax initiatives to support natural areas. The 2002
quarter-cent sales tax, known as Open Space Yes! (OSY!) provides the bulk of current revenues to
the Natural Areas Department (NAD). In addition to these revenues, the NAD receives revenues
from the County’s quarter-cent sales tax, Help Preserve Open Space (HPOS).
July 10, 2012 Page 2
The mission of the NAD is to conserve and enhance lands with existing or potential natural area
values, lands that serve as community separators, agricultural lands, and lands with scenic values.
Conservation of natural habitats and features is the highest priority while providing education and
recreation for the Fort Collins community. The citywide public opinion survey has shown increasing
satisfaction with Natural Areas. In 2001, 76% of citizens rated Natural Areas good or very good.
In 2012, 94% of citizens rated Natural Areas good or very good.
Since its inception, the NAD has conserved nearly 42,000 acres. The NAD owns and manages
35,000 acres, and 33,000 acres are open to the public. Additional lands are protected with
conservation easements (5,548 acres). The Department also leases 1,128 acres. The NAD owns a
small water rights portfolio.
The NAD operates and facilitates stewardship, safety, and outreach programs. These include Ranger
services, education and outreach, public improvements (such as trails), resource management, and,
several other operational functions. The seven-person Ranger program provides daily coverage
throughout the Natural Areas system. Education and outreach staff, along with numerous
volunteers, provide programs to over 11,000 people a year. The public improvements program helps
build and maintain over 100 miles of paved and natural surface trails; many of these trails connect
to the Citywide paved trail system. Resource and land management staff conduct habitat
management, restoration, and rehabilitation projects; they also monitor conservation easements,
manage leases, and administer right-of-way applications.
To get this work done, there are 29.5 permanent full-time staff. Seasonal staff is used extensively,
and there are an equivalent of 23 full-time hourly employees.
July 10, 2012 Page 3
Long-Term Budget
The NAD maintains a long-term budget projection model, which projects revenues and costs
through 2021. The model utilizes two different revenue projections. One projection anticipates the
renewal of the County’s sales tax which is set to expire in 2018. The second projection anticipates
the expiration of the County’s sales tax and builds an operating cushion for the NAD to operate
through 2021. This budget was created based on 2002 Council direction. The OSY! tax is set to
expire in 2030.
OSY! revenues are restricted; at least 80% must be spent on land conservation or restoration. Thus,
County revenues are critical to the operation of the NAD because they can be spent on any relevant
cost. Staff keeps track of the 80% by characterizing it as “green” money. All other expenses are
characterized as “blue” money.
Since the inception of OSY! the NAD has spent more than 80% of OSY! funds on conservation and
restoration. This will allow the Department to spend less than 80% on conservation and restoration
(and more on operations) from 2019 to 2021 (as required by Council) in the event HPOS expires in
2018. Under current projections, the NAD will be able to pay for its current operations for three
years beyond 2018 if HPOS is not renewed. If HPOS has not been renewed by that time, the
Department will not have sufficient funding to operate unless the terms of OSY! are changed to
remove the 80% restriction.
The following is a bulleted synopsis of each cumulative 2021 projection:
HELP PRESERVE OPEN SPACE (HPOS) EXPIRES IN 2018
• Assumption: HPOS revenues end in 2018
• Assumption: Revenues increase at 2% per year
• Assumption: Expenses inflate at 2% per year
• Staff frozen at 2013 level
• Staff and O&M funded through 2021
• Capital Replacement Fund capped at $1.5 million
• $0 Capital Improvement Funds budgeted after 2014
• Land Acquisition Funding through 2021 = $21 million
• Stop the $350,000 annual contribution to Parks for trails after 2014
• $1,250,000 in “blue” funds would be available for costs associated with newly acquired land,
including capital improvements.
July 10, 2012 Page 4
HPOS EXTENDED
• Assumption: HPOS Revenues extended past 2018
• Assumption: Revenues increase at 2% per year
• Assumption: Expenses inflate at 2% per year
• Staffing frozen at 2013 level
• Staff and O&M funded through 2021
• Capital Replacement Fund capped at $1.5 million
• $0 Capital Funds budgeted after 2014
• Land Acquisition Funding through 2021 = $20 million*
• Continue the $350,000 annual contribution to Parks
• Available “blue” funds for capital, staff, or land conservation, $8.5 million
*Note: The funds available for land conservation would be reduced from the
previous model by $1M because certain restoration activities would be continued if
HPOS were to be extended.
As the NAD has added land inventory over the last ten years, budgets have transitioned from
approximately 75% land conservation/restoration and 25% stewardship to approximately 35% land
conservation/restoration and 65% stewardship. Even with this shift, overall “green” spending will
exceed the 80% requirement and provide a cushion thru 2021, should HPOS not be renewed. Staff
anticipates the 65/35 split to continue into the foreseeable future.
A synopsis of budgeted 2012 expenditures is provided below:
July 10, 2012 Page 5
Land Conservation Plans
The NAD’s land conservation efforts are guided by the Council-adopted “Land Conservation and
Stewardship Master Plan” (2004). The Plan identified high-priority areas for conservation that were
characterized as local (in and around the City); community separators (such as the area between Fort
Collins and Loveland); and, regional (for example, Bobcat Ridge). The Plan called for an equal
allocation of spending among the three categories. Since 2004, expenditures have been weighted
to the regional category due to the acquisition of Bobcat Ridge and Soapstone Prairie. (Since 1992,
however, overall land conservation expenditures have been distributed equally to each category.)
Current land conservation efforts are directed to the Wellington Community Separator, the Poudre
River corridor, and the Bellvue area.
Staff believes that conservation easements are likely to be used more than they have in the past,
especially in the Wellington Community Separator. Conservation easements involve the sale of
development rights to the easement holder (in this case the City) never to be exercised. Typically
the grantor conveys a percentage of the development rights to the grantee. The grantor also has to
maintain the land in good condition. The underlying fee property remains with the grantor and can
be farmed, managed for wildlife, and enjoyed for other uses consistent with the conservation
purposes of the easement. Conservation easements are an effective tool for the City because often
the core conservation objectives of the City are achieved but at a lower cost. For example, a
conservation easement can be acquired for approximately 60% of the full market value and the land
continues to be managed by the private sector and those costs do not accrue to the public. The tool
is particular useful for agricultural lands where the City does not want to own the land, but wishes
to maintain it as a community buffer or separator and in production.
As noted in the 2021 budget projection (that assumes the County tax will expire) the NAD will have
modest funding to build public improvements or to provide additional staffing. In the case of
conservation easements, that limitation is not a problem. In the case of full fee acquisitions, it may
pose a challenge with respect to the Department’s ability to build public improvements such as
trails, bathrooms, fencing, etc. It should be noted, however, that the Department has been successful
at raising external funds to match its resources; a case in point is the recent GOCO grant for Poudre
River trail construction.
In any event, it is clear that renewal of the County’s quarter-cent sales tax is critical to the future of
the City’s Natural Areas Department and its continued ability to acquire, own, and manage land.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
1
Natural Areas Update
City Council
July 10, 2012
2
Overview
• Natural Areas Department activities
• Long-term budget
• Land conservation plans
ATTACHMENT 1
3
General Direction and Questions
• Does Council have any questions or concerns about
the Natural Areas Department operations?
• Does Council have any questions or concerns about
the long-term budget of the Natural Areas
Department?
• Does Council have any questions or concerns with
the land conservation approach of the Natural Areas
Department?
4
Background
• Natural areas activities date back to the early
1970’s
• Tax initiatives to support natural area
activities were passed in 1973, 1984, 1992,
1997, and 2002
• County initiatives passed in 1995 and 1999
5
Mission
The mission of the NAD is to conserve and enhance
lands with existing or potential natural area values,
lands that serve as community separators,
agricultural lands, and lands with scenic values.
Conservation of natural habitats and features is the
highest priority while providing education and
recreation for the Fort Collins community.
6
Open Space, Yes!
• City’s quarter-cent
• Passed in 2002, expires in 2030
• 80/20 restriction
• Green/Blue dollars
7
Help Preserve Open Space
• Larimer County’s quarter-cent
• Revenues are shared with Fort Collins and other
local governments
• Expires in 2018
• Provides a substantial percentage of Natural Areas
Department O&M
8
Natural Areas Department
2012 Budgeted Revenues $8,677,591
$3,005,939
$124,652 $60,000
$5,487,000
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
Open Space
Yes!
1996 HPOS
Larimer County
1/4 Cent Sales
Tax
Miscellaneous
Revenue
Earnings on
Investments
9
Land Conservation
• 42,000 acres
• Own and manage 35,000 acres
• 33,000 open to the public
• 5,548 acres in conservation easement
• 1,128 acres leased
• Small water rights portfolio
10
Director
Manager
Public
Improvements &
Facility Operations
Community
Outreach
Resource
Management
Crew Chief
Natural Areas
Technicians
Education/Volunteer
Coordinators
Rangers
Hourly/seasonal
Field crew
Financial
Coordinator
Environmental
Planners
Land
Management
Crew Chief
Natural Areas
Technicians
Seasonal Educators
Hourly/seasonal
Field crew
Environmental
Planner
Natural Areas
Technician
Land
Conservation
11
1) Program Management
2) Land Management
3) Resource Management
4) Visitor Services - Rangers
5) Public Improvements
6) Facilities operations
7) Education, Volunteer Coordination,
and Outreach
Programs
12
Land Management
13
Planting Cover Crops & Native Seed
Restoring Ecological Processes
Earthwork & Land Preparation
Erosion Control & Hydroseeding
Resource Management
14
15
16
17
Visitor Services
18
Public Improvements
19
20
Facilities: Primrose Studio
21
Education/Outreach/Volunteers
22
23
Long-Long -Term Budget
• Two models thru 2021
• HPOS expires
• HPOS is extended
24
Long-Long -Term Budget
• HPOS expires and the City maintains enough funding
to operate the Natural Areas Dept. thru 2021
• NAD currently operating under this model, directed to
do so by Council in 2002
• Cumulative spending “green” spending exceeds 80%
requirement
• Provides operational cushion thru 2021
• Includes a $1.5 million capital replacement fund
25
2021 w/o HPOS renewal
• $21 million available for land conservation
• Stop a $350,000 a year contribution to Parks for the
trail system in 2015
• No new staff
• $1.25 million available for all capital improvements or
other needs associated with new acquisitions or
previously acquired lands
26
2021 with HPOS renewal
• $20 million available for land conservation
• Continue $350,000 to Parks for trails
• No new staff
• $8.5 million for all capital improvements or other
needs associated with new acquisitions or previously
acquired lands
27
Natural Areas Department
2012 Budgeted Expenditures $8,879,764
$1,921,050
$1,432,500 $1,385,881
$645,150
$385,600
$3,109,583
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
Personnel
O&M
Land Conservation
Land Conservation Debt
Capital Replacement
Capital & Trails
28
Land Conservation
29
Current Focus
• Wellington Separator
• Bellvue area
• Poudre River
• Partnerships with Parks and Utilities
30
Conservation Tools
Conservation Easement
• Own property rights, not
land
• Lower costs
• No or limited access
Fee Simple Purchase
• Own and Manage the land
• Higher costs
• Public access / Recreation
31
The Future
• Anticipate using conservation easements
where appropriate, especially in Wellington
separator
• Will continue to acquire fee land
• Will seek financial partners
• Will keep a close eye on 2018
32
General Direction and Questions
• Does Council have any questions or concerns about
the Natural Areas Department operations?
• Does Council have any questions or concerns about
the long-term budget of the Natural Areas
Department?
• Does Council have any questions or concerns with
the land conservation approach of the Natural Areas
Department?
improvement or modification listed, include
what floodplain, and what jurisdiction it is N
approximately 50% for all modeled contaminants within the Cache La Poudre
watershed above the current situation or under the no-action alternative. Runoff
intensity and volume and higher pollutant loading are some issues commonly
associated with increased imperviousness.
The modeled pollutant loadings are before the application of best management
practices. Does this include both those used during construction and permanent water
quality structures?
40. The predicted constituent loadings from the Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative presented in the
EIS do not include the application of permanent BMPs. All of the alternatives would show an increase in contaminant
runoff in the Cache la Poudre watershed of approximately 50 percent, without the application of permanent BMPs. As
discussed in the mitigation section, the permanent water quality BMPs are expected to remove approximately 30 to 70
percent of various contaminants. Currently, there are no quantifiable removal rates for temporary construction BMPs
in Colorado. The removal percentages cited by the commenter are for permanent water quality structures and represent
the current level of understanding in Colorado, and the BMPs associated with all action alternatives, including the
Preferred Alternative are anticipated to reduce the pollutant load by the percentages identified in the comment.
A
96
3.5 Introduction
The DEIS text in the introductory section of the air quality chapter should be updated
to reflect that areas within the project have been designated non-attainment for the
federal 8-hour ozone standard in November 2007, per discussion in section 3.5.2, line
3.5.2- Affected Environment
Figure 3.5-1 should be updated to reflect the non-attainment designation area for the
35. Figure 3.5-1 has been updated with the correct ozone non-attainment boundary for the Denver Metro area. The
following text has been added to section 3.5.2: “However, particulate matter levels even below the NAAQS can impact
the health of individuals with respiratory sensitivity. Therefore, the City of Fort Collins has implemented a policy to
“continually improve air quality as the city grows.” Table 3.5-2 has been updated with the new monitoring station in Fort
Collins (3416 W LaPorte Ave) and “2005” has been removed from the table title. Text has been revised on page 3.5-6,
section 3.5.2.2, criteria pollutants and critical pollutant data trends as follows:35. (cont.) “Ozone concentrations have
shown no consistent trend. Concentrations spiked in 1998, 2003, and 2005, with 2003 and 2005 concentrations exceeding
Greenhouse gas emissions were not added to the
Air Quality affected environment chapter.
Please note the City’s over-arching air quality
policy has been updated to simply say
“continually improve air quality.”
C
equivalent emissions in Section 3.21 (Energy).
Estimates show that the preferred alternative
would increase CO2e emissions by 0.9% above
the No Action alternative. This is slightly more
than any other alternative and is attributed to the
impact of attracting more VMT from other
areas. It is a serious problem for this huge
investment in transportation infrastructure to
result in increased CO2e emissions. However,
the modeling does not presume any use of
electric vehicles, does not assume any increases
in the price of fossil transportation fuel, and
acknowledges under-prediction of transit use.
Growth in these areas may result in lower
carbon emissions than predicted by the model.
The FEIS states that mitigation is available for
all impacts. For increased CO2e emissions, it
suggests a focus on VMT reduction. Reduction
of carbon intensity of fuels and improvements
in vehicle fuel economy should be added as
important mitigation measures as well.
C
Ozone Non-Attainment
94
The DEIS refers to ozone designation inconsistently throughout the Air Quality
chapter. All text should reflect the November 2007 non-attainment designation area
for the 8-hour ozone standard. In addition the new, more stringent 8-hour
promulgated in March 2008 should be discussed.
33. The FEIS includes the following text on page 3.5-4: Ground-level ozone is a gas that is not emitted directly from a
source, as are other pollutants, but forms as a secondary pollutant. Its precursors are certain reactive hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides, which react chemically in sunlight to form ozone. The main sources for these reactive hydrocarbons are
automobile exhaust, gasoline, oil storage and transfer facilities, industrial paint and ink solvents, degreasing agents, and
cleaning fluids. Exposure to ozone has been linked to a number of health effects, including significant decreases in lung
We appreciate the inclusion of updated ozone
information in the FEIS.
A
Research Program Report 568 (TRB, 2006) The design will be such that minimal disruption to the ecosystem will occur.
The design will consider costs for construction and maintenance. A bridge deck drainage system that controls seepage at
joints will be considered. I possible, bridge deck drains will be piped to a water quality feature before being discharged
into a floodplain. The designs will comply with federal and state agencies. The designs will make every consideration
towards local agency requirements and will be consistent with existing watershed and floodplain management programs.
Please note that wetland mitigation is discussed in Chapter 3.8 of the EIS.
Reiterate that wetlands disturbed within the Fort
Collins area should be mitigation within the
same region.
The mitigation for each creek, river, or other
drainage is vague, not site specific, and makes it
impossible to evaluation for direct and indirect
impacts to wetlands and floodplains. The same
four mitigation measures are identified for
separate drainages. Revised, site specific
mitigation plans for each drainage should be
conducted for the public and appropriate
stakeholders to comment on.
C
89
3.13-9 Threatened Species – Environmental Consequences. The approach of
conducting an effects analysis on a broad scale is not adequate and the “one size fits
all approach” to mitigation is not adequate. Site by site and drainage by drainage
analyses need to be conducted to ensure impacts are avoided at best, mitigated at
worst.
28. Effects are presented by component and by species. For key species, such as Preble’s and bald eagle, effects are also
broken out by site. Aquatic species are addressed by drainage. For black-tailed prairie dogs, site by site analysis would
not be productive due to the large number of small prairie dog colonies involved, and the likelihood that most of these
colonies will have expanded, contracted, or disappeared by the time of construction. Other species are addressed at a
broad scale and impacts are estimated based on suitable habitat due to a lack of actual presence/ absence data. The FEIS
includes site-specific mitigation measures where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle).
Full-cutoff light fixtures or similar standards
should be used in sensitive wildlife habitat areas
(including the Fossil Creek Reservoir area C
90
3.13-12. Threatened Species. Additional lighting adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir
will further impair the quality of the bald eagle roost site at the Reservoir. This could
be mitigated by controlling light leakage or by eliminating lighting from the design of
that interchange.
29. These suggestions have been incorporated in the FEIS for all alternatives. A
Part II: Air Quality
General comments on air quality section:
Induced land use
91
Air quality in the Fort Collins community is dominated by vehicle emissions. A key
issue for local air quality improvement is to reduce the growth of vehicle miles
traveled, which depends, in turn, upon land use changes that support use of transit,
cycling, and walking. For that reason, we believe that land use densification and
transit-oriented development should be a key criteria in deciding among the
30. The purpose and need for the project and stakeholder input provided the criteria framework for alternatives
development. The purpose of the project is to meet long-term travel needs between the Denver Metro area and the rapidly
growing population centers along the I-25 corridor north to the Fort Collins-Wellington area. For this reason, both
highway and transit options were considered for the project. While the transportation system can influence land use
patterns, development is regulated at the level of local government.
Regarding the original comment that land use
densification and transit-oriented development
should be key criterion for deciding among
alternatives, we note the Preferred Alternative
provides the greatest number of alternative
C
The comment is correct that traffic noise levels in the east of Arapaho Bend do exceed the CDOT Category B NAC for
some of the open space. Noise mitigation for Arapaho Bend was evaluated and found not to be feasible and reasonable
under CDOT’s 2002 noise guidelines because there are no developed sites or recreational facilities with frequent human
use present along I-25 that would benefit from a barrier and a barrier did not meet the necessary Cost Benefit Index.
Therefore, noise mitigation is not recommended for Arapaho Bend. The list of traffic-noise-impacted sites in the Final EIS
documents was updated to include Arapaho Bend and a mitigation analysis summary was included in the Final EIS.21.
(cont.) FHWA and CDOT have recently adopted new noise regulations, taking effect in July 2011. Regarding the 2011
regulations, the result is expected to be the same. The site would be Category C rather than B, but would still be
represented by a single receiver based on the new guidance: "For activity areas that are spread across a property or for
properties that lack defined facilities or formalized activity areas, a single generalized receptor should be placed within
the property that best represents the worst expected traffic noise condition, based on professional judgment of the noise
specialist." A large barrier would be needed to abate noise for a single receiver, which would be too expensive relative to
the benefit; therefore, the reasonableness criteria
Every effort to implement non-barrier methods
of noise mitigation along I-25 (where it passes
Arapaho Bend Natural Area) should be
implemented. To be clear, we would not
support construction of a barrier to mitigate
noise in this area.
C
83
3.6.4.1. Noise. Any efforts to mitigate road noise (barriers) should consider wildlife
movement (deer, antelope) and create wildlife crossings across I25 especially north
of Fort Collins and including the Wellington area. Any barriers within the more
“metro” area should provide occasional openings to permit the movement of wildlife
across the interstate.
22. Two barriers have been recommended for the project area north of State Highway 7: Wellington East and Mountain
Range Shadows. Both of these are in fairly developed areas and are not in obvious wildlife corridors. No final
determinations on the specifics of these barriers have been made at this stage of the project, but the final choices will be
sensitive to the larger environmental context of the areas including wildlife movement. Also, see Staff Comment Response
#11.
A
84
Table 3.7-5. Water Quality. It is troubling that both action alternatives (Package A
and B) will increase stormwater contaminant loading by 50% (for all modeled
23. It is important to note that there are anticipated pollutant loadings associated with existing and No Action
Alternatives. These alternatives do not have BMPs associated with them. The BMPs for the action alternatives are
A
15. Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by implementing CDOT’s best management practices as described in
Section 3.10.3, including avoiding existing trees, shrubs, and vegetation to the maximum extent possible, especially
wetlands and riparian plant communities. The project team will coordinate with the CDOT landscape architect before
construction to determine the types of vegetation that will be protected during construction. A revegetation plan will be
developed with the CDOT landscape architect and with county personnel in Adams, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver,
Larimer, and Weld counties. CDOT will also have to go through the process of working with the CDOW when submitting
documentation to satisfy Senate Bill 40 for wildlife certification.
Re-vegetation plans for disturbed areas should
include species that are appropriate to the
community disturbed including woody species.
The FEIS does not address the removal of large
cottonwood trees at the Cache La Poudre as it
will seriously impair the quality and
functionality of the riparian habitat. How can a
generic 150 yr old 36” diameter tree be
mitigated?
C
77
Table 3.12.2: Wildlife. Audubon Society has designated Fossil Creek Reservoir as
an “Important Bird Area” and the high value for migratory waterfowl and other
waterbirds is well-documented. This should be represented in the EIS.
16. A reference to the high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds has been added
to the table.
A
78
Wildlife: Commuter rail appears to be aligned on the McKee Farm which is Larimer
County Open Lands property with conservation easements underlying the property
that would prohibit new construction. Additional train traffic through the area would
be a significant impact to recreation users (noise) and displace wildlife use within a
3,000-acre matrix of protected Fort Collins natural areas.
17. The commuter rail alignment will be located within existing rail right-of-way. Construction of commuter rail would
result in some impacts to wildlife including habitat fragmentation, disruption of movement corridors, and displacement as
described in Section 3.12.3.2. Noise impacts to parks and open spaces have been considered in the FEIS, using
appropriate guidelines. McKee Farm near the rail corridor is being actively farmed and has no visible public access or
visitor facilities.
The preferred alternative fails to recognize the
significant impacts to wildlife movement along
the proposed commuter rail line between Fort
Collins and Loveland. The addition of a
maintenance road, concrete barriers with
additional chain link fence will significantly
impact wildlife movement within and across
this 3,000 acre prairie habitat. Affected areas
include Hazaleus Natural Area, Colina
Mariposa Natural Area, Redtail Grove Natural
Area, and Longview Open Space. The addition
of commuter rail service to current and future
freight train travel will worsen wildlife
C
69
Page 4-2, the more recent update to the City’s
comprehensive plan is “Plan Fort Collins in
2010-11 which includes both City Plan and the
Transportation Master Plan. The 2004 updates
are no longer the most current documents.
N
page of images.
N
phasing plan shown for the future commuter rail
service extending from Loveland to Fort Collins
is not shown until Phase 3 (CDOT expected
timeframe of 2075+).
Staff recommends that CDOT should revise the
FEIS to only show two phases – Phase 1 as
shown now, as the “fiscally constrained plan”
based on anticipated funding levels through
2035. Then, the new “Phase 2” would include all
of the remaining elements of the Preferred
Alternative and be considered the “unfunded”
items and not be tied to an artificial, 50-60+ year
time horizon. These transportation
improvements – highway and transit – shown in
Phase 2 and 3 need to be implemented sooner
rather than later to serve the regional travel
demand forecast for 2035. Dividing them into
two artificial phases does not solve the issue that
the future regional transportation needs
significantly outpace our current funding
sources. The EIS Preferred Alternative should be
a catalyst for convening regional discussions and
partnerships to work together toward
accomplishing these needs within the 2035
timeframe.
C
54
Additional/New comments, questions, and
suggestions on the FEIS for the
Transportation Planning section:
Largest overall concern with FEIS is the
proposed phasing plan. This is new information
developed by CDOT and other agencies since the
DEIS was presented for public comment in 2008.
N
such as Downtown, CSU, the central business, employment, and residential areas
along US287/College Avenue. The regional BRT service along Harmony Road to I-
25 will require people to drive to park & rides on the south end of the City or take
local transit routes to transfer to the regional BRT service.
The proposed I-25 Tolled Express Lanes would help give advantage to travelers in
high-occupancy vehicles such as the regional BRT or carpoolers/vanpoolers as well
as support congestion pricing strategies to allow travelers who can afford to pay the
9. That is correct, access to the regional BRT service would be by either walking, driving, or taking a local bus to a
station or stop on the Harmony Road corridor. Note that the access to commuter rail in Package A or the Preferred
Alternative is via the same choice of access modes but to the US-287 corridor through the core population area of Fort
Collins. With the inclusion of express bus, the Preferred Alternative provides regional transit service on both the US 287
and Harmony corridors. The evaluation indeed identified that freight traffic would not be directly served by the addition
of TEL in Package B. However, note that mobility in the adjacent general purpose lanes is improved for freight and non-
toll paying vehicles, but not as much as Package A. The Preferred Alternative includes additional general purpose lanes
as well as TEL north of SH 66. This cross section would improve mobility for freight traffic as well as non-toll paying
vehicle
The Preferred Alternative provides general
purpose lanes as well as toll lanes to serve
highway travel needs and includes the regional
express bus service along Harmony Road from
the City's new south transit center to I-25
connecting to Denver.
A
50
In addition, locating this major regional commuter rail line in the heart of the Fort
Collins community will lessen the likelihood of future land development shifts
occurring away from the existing central population & activity centers within our
community. Fort Collins’ adopted Transportation Master Plan and City Plan are
based on compact urban development occurring within the core areas of our
community. The proposed regional commuter rail alignment along the BNSF
corridor supports these transportation and land use master plans.
7. Comment noted. Your observations of commuter rail’s influence on land development patterns are generally consistent
with the findings of an expert panel convened to evaluate the alternatives regarding induced growth. The effect of
Package A, Package B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway
improvements are generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of
the packages. However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of
developments near stations in the city centers.
The Preferred Alternative with regional
commuter rail alignment along the BNSF
corridor supports the City of Fort Collins
Transportation Master Plan and City Plan. A
concerns. C
46
Also, the current results of the travel model show that many trips are moving within
the North Front Range and to/from the Fort Collins and Longmont, Boulder areas
along the US287 corridor. These inter- and intra-regional travel patterns, in addition
to the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips, need to be analyzed in more detail for
each package of alternatives and as part of the process to determine the preferred
alternative. The preferred alternative should address all of these trip purposes, not
just the Fort Collins to downtown Denver trips along I-25.
3. The DEIS technical analysis accounts for all trip purposes and trip origins and destinations within the northern and
Denver front range area. For purposes of presentation, some illustrations highlight travel along I-25.
The inter- and intra-regional travel patterns
appear to have been included in the analysis.
However those patterns need to be better
illustrated. C
Interchanges
47
Staff supports the analysis completed during the early stages of the North I-25 EIS
process for each of the interchange areas (existing & potential) serving the Fort
Collins area: Carpenter Road/SH392, Harmony Road, Prospect Road, Mulberry
Street/SH14, and Mountain Vista Drive. Staff concurs with the conclusions and
recommended conceptual designs developed by CDOT and their consultant team.
Staff appreciates CDOT’s efforts to include the City of Fort Collins staff and local
property/business owners throughout the interchange analysis process and the design
modifications that CDOT was willing to make to address our local concerns for
adjacent land impacts.
4. FHWA and CDOT would like to thank you for your participation and look forward to your continued involvement. Comments addressed
A
Detailed analyses based on data have been conducted and documented in the DEIS; the same will be true for the
Preferred Alternative in the FEIS
See comments on modeling C
40
Cost estimates must be realistic and include costs for construction as well as on-going
operations & maintenance;
Detailed cost estimates are being updated for the Preferred Alternative and will be documented in the FEIS; including
capital construction costs and on-going operations and maintenance costs.
Comment addressed A
41
Need to consider more environmental factors such as air quality, land impacts, etc. in
the detailed analysis of the proposed improvements.
These factors are all discussed in the document
See comments in each topic section C
42
Need to consider the costs vs. benefits for expenditure of public resources to support
core transportation services and which provide the greatest degree of return on
investment.
Costs are considered throughout the project development process, among other factors. Benefits are difficult to calculate
in terms of dollars, because monetary relationships are less definitive. For example, travel time savings would need to be
converted to dollars, and assumptions for value-of-time necessarily introduce subjectivity. For this reason, benefit-cost
ratios are not typically calculated.
Continue to be concerned regarding the issue
for more systematic triple bottom line
analysis C
43
Consider the costs associated with deferring the improvements beyond 20 year horizon
shown in the phasing plans. The phasing plan 65 year timeframe is unrealistic and
doesn’t make sense, need to find more ways to fund necessary improvements in the
nearer term.
As you know, funding sources are extremely limited. Unfortunately, the 65 year timeframe is the construction schedule
given current projections of revenue. It is possible the schedule for implementation of this project, and similar schedules
for other proposed projects, will be a call to action for stakeholders to initiate new revenue possibilities so that the
phasing plan can be accelerated
See phasing comments
C
Coordination with other rail studies has included FasTracks Northwest Rail, FasTracks North Metro, RMRA High speed
rail, etc.
Comment addressed - more work needs to
continue such as coordination with high speed
rail studies C
27
Why does the North I-25 not show Commuter Rail service between Greeley and
Denver?
Frequency of freight train traffic is very high; potential ridership projections didn’t warrant rail service and the proposed
Express and Commuter Bus services are able to handle future ridership projections for less cost.
Comment addressed A
28
Core to Core connection is very important to serve population centers.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative reflects the community to community connection with Commuter Rail connecting the
downtown cores of communities including Fort Collins, Loveland, Berthoud, and Longmont
Comment addressed A
29
Move away from status quo highway planning. We need to plan for sustainable,
long-term solutions to connect our communities in the future. Not like the T-Rex
example that only provided 46 seconds of travel time savings after millions of dollars
in investment.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative includes Commuter Rail, a sustainable transportation connection between the core of
communities. The I-25 highway facility needs rebuilding to address aging infrastructure needs. The FEIS Preferred
Alternative also includes a Tolled Express Lane (TEL) on I-25, allowing HOV vehicles free travel in a restricted lane hence
supporting the alternative modes of carpooling and vanpooling. Express Bus service, with connecting bus service to the
communities, also will serve the I-25 corridor in the TEL lanes.
Comment addressed
A
30
Consider environmental impacts, social mobility for all people, and growth impacts.
These impacts are all discussed in the document
Comment addressed A
31
How does Commuter Rail alternative handle the existing freight rail traffic?
The rail corridor will serve both freight rail and the passenger rail service. This will be possible due to coordination of
operating schedules, and use of sidings. Some initial coordination with the BNSF has occurred; a collaborative effort with
the BNSF will establish a joint use agreement regarding infrastructure and operating plan requirements.
Comment addressed A
Comment addressed A
15
Need to consider how the findings in the North I-25 EIS tie to the High Speed Rail
Study
This is one of the studies we coordinated with during the DEIS development. The Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Study was
ongoing at the time of DEIS publication; coordination efforts show that the EIS’s Commuter Rail serves a travel market of
community to community travel needs, which is different than the intra-state and possibly inter-state travel market that
would use high speed rail.
See comment on future interchange design
and clear space C
16
Natural Resources staff comments are very important and need to be addressed in
Final EIS document, in particular:
Commuter Rail fence disruptive to wildlife movement.
Fencing is to limit access and improve safety. We are following the RTD guidelines. The type of fencing may vary
depending on adjacent land uses and wildlife use. The FEIS will list a range of fencing options to be considered during the
design process, including wildlife friendly fences, and could potentially include wildlife underpasses.
See comment on barriers C
17
Mapping needs to be improved to be more accurate for locations of natural areas,
water features, drainage ways, and floodplain areas.
All maps have been updated with new info collected from the municipalities. The City of Ft Collins has been directly
contacted and staff has provided us updated GIS files.
See comment in Natural Resources section C
18
Concern regarding impacts to wildlife habitat areas, large cottonwood trees, and
Threatened & Endangered species.
Impacts to riparian habitat will be mitigated by CDOT's revegetation Best Management Practices, including avoiding
existing trees to the maximum extent possible. The high value of Fossil Creek Reservoir for migratory waterfowl will be
documented in the FEIS. The FEIS will include site-specific mitigation measures for Threatened and Endangered species
where appropriate (for example for Preble’s and bald eagle). City of Fort Collins staff suggestions for controlling lighting
near Fossil Creek Reservoir to reduce the effect on bald eagle roost sites will be incorporated in the FEIS
See comment in Natural Resources section
C
traffic impacts the capacity and operation of I-25 and I-25 interchanges. Because of this, freight truck traffic and
anticipated growth in truck traffic along I-25 is accounted for in all the traffic analyses conducted in the DEIS and FEIS.
Freight traffic on I-25 is estimated to grow 2% annual on the south end and slightly more than 3% on the north end of the
corridor and constitutes 8 to 14% of the total traffic. It is estimated that under the No Action alternative delay to truck
traffic would be 67 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street for a total travel time of 133 minutes. Three cross sections
were evaluated for inclusion in the Preferred Alternative. The preferred cross section identified added both a general
purpose lane and a tolled express lane north of SH 66. This was, in part, to better accommodate anticipated growth in
freight traffic along I-25. 8The Preferred Alternative is expected to provide the most travel time improvement for freight
traffic with a total travel time of 107 minutes between SH 1 and 20th Street.
Comment addressed. A
8
Is there an overall picture of environmental damage, including impacts of
transportation, infrastructure, dislocations, and induced development? I don't think so.
8. The DEIS addresses the environmental impacts within each respective resource section. Transportation impacts are
addressed in Chapter 4, dislocations are addressed in Chapters 3.2 and 3.4, and induced development is addressed in
Chapter 3.1 and Appendix C—Land Use. Chapter 7 of the DEIS contains the overall “picture” of the trade-offs among
See staff comments under each topic area for
details.
C
DRCOG’s modeling and Denver’s experience
with rail transit. Also, the FEIS states that for
communities such as Fort Collins that have
“Transit Oriented Development” land-use
policies, there could be up to 35% increase in
ridership projections. These potential differences
in transit ridership projections are substantial.
What would the impact be if these higher
ridership projections are more realistic? Both
from a transit system capacity standpoint as well
as from a highway planning perspective? To
help address these concerns, staff suggests that
travel demand forecasts for automobile trips as
well as transit trips be updated in the future to
reflect new trends and methodologies prior to the
implementation of any of the highway and/or
transit improvements included in the Preferred
Alternative.
C
4
Do the transportation models incorporate the impacts of transportation alternatives on
growth patterns and transportation oriented development? If growth shifts toward I25,
away from city centers, what will happen with VMT?
4. The forecasts use the adopted socioeconomic datasets of the NFRMPO and DRCOG. The effect of Package A, Package
B, and the Preferred Alternative on growth patterns is described in Section 4.2.7: Since the highway improvements are
generally similar between the packages, a similar amount of growth near I-25 is anticipated for any of the packages.
However the commuter rail in Package A and the Preferred Alternative would intensify the density of developments near
stations in the city centers. If growth shifts towards I-25, the amount of VMT would increase by a small amount.
Staff continues to be concerned regarding this
issue and recommends that future travel demand
forecasts be updated to reflect more recent local
land use and transportation plans to assess the
potential impacts of changing growth patterns.
For example, Fort Collins’ recently updated our
comprehensive plan “City Plan” and our
C